0132 In chapter eight, Fuller asks, “Will expertise survive?”

It depends on whether the current enlightenment god wins.

0133 To me, it is for Fuller to tell of the historical rise of expertise, as the appearance of an expert-level following the adoption of mechanical philosophies by northern Europe in the 1600s.  The sloganization of the Positivist’s judgmentfollows Immanuel Kant (1704-1804 AD) and occurs in the 1800s.

Here is a diagram of the Positivist’s judgment.

0134 The positivist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with phenomena, observable and measurable facets of their noumenon (what is, firstness).

In the empirio-schematic judgment, disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is,firstness).

0135 The professionalization of expertise tracks right alongside the ascent of the Positivist’s judgment, especially in regards to the structure of the university in the West.  The normal context of an educational institution_3b brings the actuality of professional credentials_2b into relation with the possibility of ‘formalizing knowledge’_1b.

Positivist educational institutions_3b are not put into perspective by transcendentals, such as truth_3c, justice_3c, beauty_3c and other features of righteousness_3c.  Rather, they_3b are put into perspective by a relativist one_3c.

0136 Here is a picture.

I hope this looks familiar.

0137 Recall, at the start of Fuller’s effort, the reader is told that relativism makes sense for someone outside of all relativized jurisdictions.  One_3c must be outside of all jurisdictions in order to… um… judge them as a system of differences_3b.  In this regard, there is a divine sort of absolutism_3c that accompanies relativism_3b.  Does that make the relativist one_3c divine?  Does that make the one that occupies the perspective-level normal context into an enlightenment god?

0138 Say what?

For example, consider the two divine singularities that confront one another during the Third Battle among the Enlightenment Gods: The Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies (1945 to 1989 AD).

0139 The first is the capitalist one.  The capitalist one_3c is explicitly abstracted over the course of the 1700s and the 1800s as the one who makes the assessment as to whether an organization is viable or not.  Capital is like blood.  It is neither living nor dead.  Rather, it is undead.  It flows through the conduits that keep an organization alive.  And, that sounds both weird and morbid.

0140 Indeed, nineteenth century capitalist experts fixate on gold as the blood of finance.  Mercantilist institutions seek to accrue gold.  Gold is money.  Mercantilists strive to preserve the flow of gold, as well as flows of low-priced commodities into and high-priced manufactured items out of the country.  Mercantilists conduct transactions that keep their institutions alive.  They are in the business of markets, values and prices.  Each nation thinks that it can win in the capitalist system_3c.

The mercantilist world ends through its hubris and internal contradictions, in the First Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: The Tragic Battle among Naive Mercantilist Ideologies (1914-1918).

0141 The second is the socialist one.  The socialist one is explicitly abstracted over the course of the 1800s and 1900s as the one who puts the organization tier into perspective in terms of order and righteousness.  Order is the potential underlying sovereign power.  Righteousness is the potential underlying institutions.

Institutions are not the same as organizations.  Institutions put organizations into perspective.  See A Primer on How Institutions Think, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0142 The Second Battle of the Enlightenment Gods (1938-1945) starts as a fight between two socialist fraternal ideologies: fascism and communism.

0143 Fascism incubates from the fraternization of capitalist corporate dealers and state authorities.  State politicians are eager to perform market interventions for their corporate buddies.  Corporate expertise and political machinations go hand in glove.  Fascist politicians formulate socialist ideologies that justify such fraternal relations in terms of the brotherhood of the titans of state and business, or the brotherhood of the experts, or the brotherhood of the people united in their ethnic identity…

….anything but the brotherhood of communists.

0144 In contrast, communism is formulated by Karl Marx (1818-1883) as a Hegelian synthesis to the thesis of feudalismand the antithesis of capitalism.  Communism is adopted by reasonable people who want to be brothers in something,again.

In Christendom, people were brothers in Christ, which alienated Jews, even though Jesus the Christ is a Jew.  The history, to say the least, is complicated.

Plus, after the start of the so-called “Western Enlightenment”, some people no longer want to belong to any Christian faction.  The problem?  “Not religious” Christians want to congregate.  Alienated Jews no longer want to be alienated.  So, an easy solution is to unite former Christians and secular Jews as brothers in communism.  Communism provides order_3b, value_2b and righteousness_1b.  Plus, communism loves expertise.  The Western Enlightenment loves experts.  Communism thrives on socialist expertise.

0145 So, the Second Battle of the Enlightenment gods starts as fascism versus communism.  Then, American capitalists are drawn into the fray, not as friends of fascism, but as enemies of fascism.  Why?  Americans do not comprehend the cronyism and the kookiness of fascist socialist ideologies and they don’t have the expertise to understand communist socialist ideologies.  Plus, some Americans realize that they can make a lot of… you know… the undead blood of capitalism.  And, other Americans start to believe that capital_2c puts markets_3b, value_2b and prices_1b into perspective.

So, the Second World War divides into fascism versus capitalism and fascism versus communism.

After four years of conflict, leaving millions dead, the winners turn out to be the brothers in capitalist USA and the brothers in communist USSR.

0146 Thus, the stage is set for the Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods (1945-1989) as a war between capitalist (USA) and socialist (USSR) expertise.

0147 At the end of this battle, both ideologies are severely wounded, yet remain alive, ghostlike, within expertise itself.

The post-truth condition takes center stage in 1989, with the inauguration of the Fourth Battle of Enlightenment Gods.

0148 In chapter eight, Fuller asks, “Will expertise survive?”

It depends on whether their enlightenment god wins.

0149 Originally, the capitalist one and the socialist one have two independent traditions of expertise.

With the glorification of the empirio-normative judgment, defining success_2c since 1989, these two traditions of expertisecelebrate what they have in common.  The contents of the questionable boxes of the capitalist one and the socialist onehybridize with the positivist cross.  The situation levels of the capitalist one and the socialist one enter into alliance with the empirio-schematic judgment unfolded into a category-based nested form.

0150 Now, the situation_b-level of two distinct relative ones_3b share a common epistemological structure_2b.  These deadly enemies now view the world in the same… um… fashion.

This is a radical proposition.

Both capitalist and socialist ideologies adopt the same empirio-schematic denkstyle.

0151 So, a question arises, “How does this examiner draw clues in Fuller’s text together into a simple relation?“

Here is one option.

The situation-level nested forms for both the capitalist one and the socialist one hybridize into a single intersection_2b.  So, the two former combatants_3b become two branches in service to the same deity_3c.

The disciplinary language of science_3b brings the intersection of capitalist and socialist approaches_2b into relation with the potential_1b of observations and measurements of the phenomena of what people say_2a.

0152 In America, the so-called “boomer generation” is trained to love either the capitalist one or the socialist one and to hate the other.  The boomer generation is born between say, 1945 and 1964, corresponding to the first half of the Cold War (1945-1989).  They endorse the broadcasts_2c of either the capitalist one_3c or the socialist one_3c.

So, the possibility that these two ideologies may join into two branches of a single deification is incredible.  It cannot be believed.  Pity the boomers, trapped in the cognitive bubble of the so-called “Cold War”.

0153 Yet, some boomers see it coming.  From 1964 on, one tactic of the capitalist one_3c has been to undermine the socialist one_3c (in communist jurisdictions) by offering a mimic of the socialist one (in capitalist jurisdictions).  The deal is initially called, “guns and butter”. “Guns” to fight the commies.  “Butter” to purchase votes for those inclined to fall in love with righteousness and order.

Success_2c, for the scientismist one_2c, entails the generation of actionable judgments_2c, by a centralizing state in favor of both “guns” (for capitalist experts) and “butter” (for socialist experts).   Opportunity_1c lies with a government that secures larger and larger implementations of expert-demanding activities, particularly in regards to engaging in international conflicts and resolving questions of housing, welfare and education.  In 2024, in the USA, one can earn a university degree_2b in “supply chains” as well as in “social work”.

0154 What does this imply?

Well, every purchase of Fuller’s book, A Player’s Guide to the Post-Truth Condition, indicates that people have difficulties with the one of scientism_3c.

But, postmodern experts are way ahead of the flock that they are shearing.

They have already patented the word, “woke”, as a parole for a university langue.

In this regard, see Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog from April 11 to 29, 2023.

0155 As to whether postmodern expertise will survive in a scientismist world_3c, where both capitalist and socialist experts_3b convert the opinions, facts and experiences of everyday people_2a into phenomena_1b for value-extracting analysis_2b, the answer is obvious.

The one of scientism_3c is our current enlightenment god.

As long as this deity_3c rules, experts_3b need not fret.

Both capitalism and socialism operate under the imprimatur of the cross of scientism.

0156 In chapter nine, Fuller asks, “Will universities survive the post-truth condition?”

In the 1700s, philosophers and theologians run universities.

In the 1800s, scientists demand departments in universities.

By the end of the 1900s, the scientismist one dominates the universities so much that traditional fields such as philosophy, belles lettres, art, geometry, rhetoric, history, language, and theology are in decline.  Who needs these when no one reads, history is encapsulated in on-line “encyclopedias”, language translators are routine, and the route to opportunity_1c for someone in “the humanities” leads directly to so-called “public education” run by administrators that are experts in the psychometric sciences?

0157 The psychometric sciences?

Think business and journalism.

Think education and public relations.

Think expertise in capitalism and expertise in socialism.

0158 Although I rarely directly quote a work under examination, Fuller proves too eloquent not to reproduce a snippet.  Epistemologically, science is bought wholesale, for purposes of retail, not necessarily of consumption. Fuller continues, “Experts function to domesticate the more impressionable and diverse features of democracy…. Their modus operandisows the seeds of self doubt, so that people stop trusting their own judgment and instead defer to ‘those who know better’.  In effect, experts manage to convert knowledge (opinions, the stuff of what people say_2a) from a vehicle of personal empowerment to the great self-inhibitor (which, for the psychometric sciences, is value_2b).”

Okay, I could not help but to add my comments in parentheses.

0159 What are reasonable_3a,_1a people supposed to do when experts_3b regard common opinions and experiences_2a as phenomena_2a to be surveilled_1b then modeled_2b according to the disciplinary languages_3b of manipulation and propaganda… er… I mean to say… the psychometric sciences_3b?

0160 The reader may wonder, “Where does that term ‘psychometric science’ come from?”

Consider Looking at Joseph Farrell’s Book (2020) “The Tower of Babel Moment”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog from December 26 through Dec 30, 2023.  The term is coined by Dr. Farrell.  The science of mind-manipulation is as old as our current Lebenswelt.

For our own modern Age of Ideas, I visualize three sciences, blossoming one after the other within the dynamics of the Positivist’s judgment, each fashioning its own variation of phenomena, that is, the fuel for the empirio-schematic judgment.

0161 So, what models_2b are used by the psychometric sciences_3b in order to arrive at an empirio-normative judgment_2c?

Oh yeah, the expert-levels of the former adversaries in the Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods constitute a situation-level actuality_2b.

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

0162 A virtual nested form runs down a column in a three-level interscope.

For the virtual nested form in the category of secondness, the normal context of the empirio-normative judgment_2cvirtually brings an actuality composed of both capitalist and socialist paradigms_2b into relation with what the psychometric sciences regard as phenomena_1b(2a) (that is, the observable and measurable aspects_1b of what people are saying_2a).

An utterance such as, “Jesus is the King of kings.” is irrelevant as phenomena_2a.  Why?  How can that statement be modeled as value_2b in terms of a financial exchange or an organizational objective that a centralizing state can capitalize… or should I say, “socialize”… on?

An utterance such as, “Don’t let a crisis go to waste.” is relevant as phenomena_2a, since it can be modeled as value_2b in terms of both price and righteousness.

0163 What does this imply?

The great state-funded empirio-normative universities, whether they survive or not, face a research ethics problem.

0164 According to Fuller, “research ethics” is a figment of the regulatory imagination.

It is a fig leaf for the empirio-normative university.

Why?

Imagine a school, selectively taking some of the opinions and traditions of parents_2a as phenomena_2a, then training their children on models of price and righteousness_2b that empower the one of scientism_3c.

0165 In chapter ten, titled “‘Research Ethics’ as a Post-Truth Playground”, Fuller demonstrates that empirio-normative social construction does not conform to familiar codes of conduct.

Surely, many nominally Christian parents merely want their children to seal the deal of the post-truth interscope and obtain certification_2b that guarantees opportunities_1c for success_2c in the normal context of a scientismist godhead_3c.  A Biblical parallel might be the ancient Hebrew family who sends their kids to the Canaanite College of Baal Business and Asherah Service Management.

0166 The problem is that there does not seem to be a clear way forward for reasonable_3a,1a people, who want to learn how to get ahead and think for themselves.

Going back to the first rendition of the interscope of the relativist one, the intellects_3a and the wills_1a of individuals in community support diverse opinions_2a that are then sifted, as phenomena_2a, by an academy_3b that formalizes knowledge_1b.

0167 In general, the resulting formalized knowledge_1b, which might include skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic, produces a person trained well-enough to find opportunity_1c in the system of the relativist one_3c of the day.

Here is a picture.

0168 The problem is subtle.

In this figure, “success” is an ambiguous term.  On the scrappy-player level, “success_2a” is “getting ahead”.  On the relativist-one level, “success_2c” is an actionable judgment.  The godhead does not care whether the resulting actions promote or destroy human flourishing.

Yes, gods can be capricious in this way, especially gods that don’t deal with truth.

0169 So, when the scrappy player, whose will_1a operates in the normal context of the intellect_3a, virtually situates his will_1a with the possibility of formal knowledge_1b, he makes a choice to subjugate his own facts and claims_2a to the facts and claims_1b required to obtain a credential_2b through some educational forum_3b.  He wants to get ahead and find opportunity_1c for “success_2a” from the scrappy-player point of view.

The scrappy player does not realize that he has also achieves success_2c in the normal context of the relativist one_3c, who sees “success_2c” only as the manifestation of an actionable judgment_2c, irrespective of whether that manifestation coincides with what the scrappy player regards as “success_2a“.

0170 But, that does not mean that the two renderings of “success” are completely independent.

I suppose that, before the Christians establish universities throughout Europe, an astrologer may have been a success_2a in regards to the relativist one_3c of the time as well as a well-renumerated_2a practitioner in reading celestial indicators_2c. Indeed, the fact that the astrologer is well-paid_2a indicates the power_2c of his expertise_2b within the Zeigeist_3c.

As Christian universities promote the demystification of the celestial bodies_2c, to the extent that Aristotle allows, the astrologer finds less opportunities_1c and soon enough, no one wants to be an apprentice to the local astrologer, because that is a lousy way to get ahead_2a.  The relativist god of the alchemical sciences has to wait a few centuries for another post-truth civilizational moment to manifest.

0171 Oddly, this brings me back to Fuller’s tenth chapter, where he claims that ethics is usually grounded in two codes of conduct: one transactional and one transcendental.

To me, given this examination, which runs a complementary course to Fuller’s text, the transactional code may apply to institutional_3b conduct in regards to the scrappy player_3a and the transcendental code may apply to the divine_3c in terms of the capriciousness inherent in defining success_2c in terms of actionable judgments.

The transactional code says that credentials_2b must be rewarded to a scrappy player_2a who objectively masters the relevant formalized knowledge_1b.

The transcendental code says that simply arriving at actionable judgments_2c is not enough.  The actions of perspective-level judgments_3c ought to promote human flourishing rather than destruction.

However, as this examination continues, the adjectives “transactional” and “transcendental” are repurposed as qualifiers for capitalist and socialist values, respectively.

0172 One more point about chapter ten.

The author discloses an amazing coincidence.

In 1996, Fuller publishes an article in the same issue of the journal, Social Text, as Alan Sokal’s infamous fraud, marking the start of the so-called Sokal Hoax.  The admission is delightful, occurring as it does in a discussion that intimates that the relativist one’s interscope founding potential is the will_1a, not the truth_1a.

0173 Here is a picture of the interscope for the relativist one in the Fourth Battle Involving Enlightenment Gods: Empirio-Normative Domination within the Post-Truth Condition (1989 to present).

Yes, reason_3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect_3a operating on the potential of the will_1a.  In our current Lebenswelt,we (humans) reason_3a,1a and come up with diverse facts and claims_2a.  These opinions are selectively observed and measured in order to produce the psychometric models_2b that will be validated by the post-modern university_3b through certification_2b.  Certification_2b is put into perspective by opportunities_1c to success_2c.  But, success_2c for the scientismist one_3c is not the same as what the person on the scrappy player level_3a,1a thinks it_2a is. 

0174 The title of chapter eleven is “Why Ignorance – Not Knowledge – Is The Key To Justice in the Post-Truth Condition”.

Fuller associates the ignorance position with John Rawls (1921-2002 AD).  Rawls is regarded as the greatest philosopher of the social democratic welfare state.

Fuller associates the knowledge position with Robert Nozick (1938-2002).  Nozick is regarded as the most philosophically sophisticated defender of modern libertarianism.

He then plays one off of the other, arriving at the conclusion in the chapter’s title.

0175 For this examiner, Fuller inadvertently re-capitulates an empirio-normative judgment in the following fashion.

0176 Yes, Fuller takes the opportunity_1c to express his expertise_3b.

In terms of psychometric models, justice is value₂.  Rawls associates with the socialist nested form.  Nozick associates with the capitalist nested form.  For Rawls, in the normal context of order₃, fairness₁ provides the best righteousness for justice₂.  For Nozick, in the normal context of what the market can deliver₃, imposing a price… er… cost₁ is the best avenue to repair justice₂.  Rawls wants to impose a veil of ignorance₂, thus assuring fairness₁.  Nozick wants to repair₂,thus assuring reconciliation₁.

0177 Of course, my own associations cast Fuller as an expert_3b within the very system that he is (theoretically) calling out.

Yet, that is not his intent.

Such is the revelation embedded within his work.The very stones cry out.

0178 Chapter twelve shifts Fuller back to a guide for the post-truth condition.

0179 In 2020, he writes that there are four challenges to the psychometric sciences for the budding COVID-19 saga.

First, winning the fight against the virus.

Second, winning the fight over what ‘winning the fight’ means.

Third, winning the fight over the lessons to learn from ‘what winning the fight means’.

Fourth, winning the fight over ‘what the lessons from winning the fight’ broadly mean.

0180 Here is a guess as to the appropriate empirio-normative judgment.

Note how each challenge ends when what is (what people say) corresponds to what ought to be (a normative narrative).  As each challenge ends, the next begins.

0181 In 2024, I ask, “Where do the four challenges stand?”

First is winning the fight about the origins of the virus.  This fight is not over.

Second is winning the fight over how to really treat this particular viral disease.  This fight is ongoing.

Third is winning the fight over how the initial determination of what to do to cure the disease turned out to be a complete disaster, as well as a fraud, perpetrated as an ineffective synthetic mRNA technology and approved by experts as an experimental “vaccine”.  The public is still in shock.

Fourth is winning the fight over the broad lessons of a catastrophic success_2c coming from the one of scientism_3c, who now seems to be prepared to encourage more trials_2c. 

0182 It is enough to throw one into a fit of metalepsis.

0183 Chapter thirteen is titled, “Thinking in the Fourth Order: The Role of Metalepsis in the Post-Truth Condition”.

The fourth challenge of any crisis is a fight over what the lessons from winning the fight broadly mean.

In other words, fourth-order thinking is a fight over the meaning of success_2c.

Today, success_2c for the all-but-divine post-truth perspective-level normal context_3c does not seem to coincide with what the scrappy player regards as the success_2a that is to be attained by submitting the player’s will_1a to the situation-level potential_1b of formalized knowledge.

0184 Indeed, the discrepancy is palpable.

Just ask a highly indebted graduate of a well-known university who has earned a degree in a psychometric discipline,where capitalist values entail skills in manipulation and where socialist values entail skills in propaganda.

Where are the jobs?

“Oh,” say the experts at the One Economic Forum, “You are already a success because of your credentials_2b in the psychometric sciences_3b.  You have pleased the gods of scientism_3c.  You will own nothing and you will be happy.”

0185 Then, the former student receives a thick envelope from a loan agency containing a book full of expected payments.  Here are coupons… er… I should say… your monthly bills for the loans that you took out.  You can make our work more convenient by allowing the loan agency to automatically remove the amount of the bill from your checking account on a monthly basis.

Yes, the discrepancy is palpable.

0186 The graduate begins to understand that he has already been sacrificed for the scientismist one’s success_2c.

Success_2c for the system is not the same as success_2a for an individual within the system.

Oh, the capriciousness of the gods.

0187 What about metalepsis?

Metalepsis is a rhetorical trope where something imaginative is taken to be real.

How curious.

So, which does metalepsis go with, illusion or delusion?

Consider the following definitions, which occur in Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog at the start of January, 2023.

An illusion is a mind-independent being that is regarded as mind-dependent.

A delusion is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent.

0188 Well, obviously, the rhetorical trope of metalepsis must be a delusion.

Something imaginative is taken to be real.

All the experts are satisfied.

Metalepsis is madness.

0189 Oh, wait, do I feel a Gestalt shift coming on?

Is everything that seems to be mind-dependent becoming mind-independent?

Including the labels?

Does that mean that the rhetorical trope of metalepsis may be an illusion?

The experts are satisfied that metalepsis_2a (as a mind-independent phenomenon) is madness_1b (a mind-dependent formalization) because they regard metalepsis_2a as a reticence that questions, does not submit to, and does not want to participate in_1b, the acknowledgment that the relativist one_3c is scientism_3c.  Outside of science_3c, everything is relative.  Science_3c does not dwell in the jurisdiction of all other knowledge traditions.  In fact, science_3c rises above all other academic turfs_3b.  Science_3c eclipses all academic fiefdoms_3b.

0190 But, let me re-examine the definitions of metalepsis, illusion and delusion once again.

 In metalepsis, something imaginative is taken to be real.

“Something imaginative” appears to be mind-dependent, and that is what illusion creates. When a mind-independent being (such as a decision_2c by the one of scientism_3c) appears as mind-dependent (as opinions of people about something_2a), then something real becomes something imaginative.  That fits the definition of illusion.

“Something that is believed to be real” appears mind-independent, and that is what delusion creates.  When a mind-dependent being (such as opinions_2a) appears as mind-independent (phenomena observed and measured by the experts in the psychometric sciences_1b), then something imaginative becomes something real.

0191 Yes, the expert can regard metalepsis as delusional.

But, illusion is near at hand.

0192 Is there another way to think about metalepsis?

Does the interventional sign-relation have the characteristics of metalepsis?

Something mind-dependent_2c (imaginative) is taken to be mind-independent_2a (real), but not in a straightforward fashion.

An empirio-normative judgment_2c (SV_i) stands for what people say_2a (SO_i)

0193 The empirio-normative judgment_2c must be mind-dependent because it is a triadic relation.

Triadic relations are mind-dependent beings.

Oh, yeah, triadic relations can also be mind-independent beings.

Ugh, I forgot to add that triadic relations bring mind-independent beings into relation with mind-dependent beings, and visa versa.

This is a little confusing.

0194 Let me start with the following.

Because a judgment is a triadic relation, and triadic relations often occur in the mind, some regard the empirio-normative judgment_2c as mind-dependent.

However, the empirio-normative judgment_2c resides as an actuality₂ on the perspective_c-level of post-truth interscope.  As such, it should be mind-independent.

0195 The same type of distinction applies to the content-level actuality.  Opinions_2a are mind-dependent and phenomena_2a (the observable and measurable facets of people’s opinions) are considered to be mind-independent.

0196 Okay, what about the interventional sign-relation?

How do mind-dependence (imaginative) and mind-independence (real) play out in the interventional sign-relation?

The empirio-normative judgment_2c serves as an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i).  It_2c does so in its role as a perspective_c-level actuality₂.  Typically, sign-vehicles are mind-independent and sign-objects are mind-dependent.  So, when the empirio-normative judgment_2c operates as an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i), then it is a mind-dependent being (a judgment) that appears to be mind-independent (a sign-vehicle).

Does that pretension meet the definition of delusion? Or illusion?  Or what?

0197 Here is a picture of the interventional sign-relation, so far.

Let me say that again.

Opinions_2a are ubiquitous and can be experienced, while the judgment_2c that arises from an opportunity_1c for the relativist one_3c cannot be directly witnessed by a scrappy player.

0198 However, sign-vehicles are taken to be mind-independent.  So, even though the perspective-level judgment_2c of the relativist one is mind-dependent, its_2c role as an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) gives it the character of mind-independent realness.

Following the same line of thought, interventional sign-object is imbued with the character of mind-dependent imaginative-ness, even though the content-level actuality_2a is plain to see and hear.  Witness peoples opinions_2a.

0199 The empirio-normative judgment_2c (an apparently mind-independent SV_i) stands for what people say_2a (an apparently mind-dependent SO_i) in regards to the intellect_3a operating on the will_1a (SI_i).  The interventional sign-interpretant (SI_i) must be the mechanism whereby something apparently mind-independent (but is constitutionally mind-dependent) becomes something mind-dependent (a SO_i consisting of opinions_2a).

0200 Does that meet the definition of “metalepsis”?

No, something apparently mind-independent and real (SV_i) stands for something apparently mind-dependent and imaginative (SO_i) in regards to reason_3a,1a (SI_i).

Yes, the mind-dependent and imaginative interventional sign-object (SO_i) next serves as an apparently mind-independent and real specifying sign-vehicle (SV_s).

Overall, opinions_2a seem to be mind-dependent because they are interventional sign-objects (SO_i).

Then, opinions_2a appear to be mind-independent because they are specifying sign-vehicles (SV_s).

0201 Okay, does “metalepsis” coincide this transition?

Something mind-dependent is taken to be mind-independent.

What happens next?

The specifying sign-relation couples the content and situation levels.  Phenomena_2a (SV_s) stand for models of valuation_2b(SO_s) in regards to the disciplinary languages of the psychometric sciences_3b operating on the potentials of observation and measurement_1b (SI_s).  Social phenomena_2a (SV_s) specify psychometric models (SO_s).  

0202 Does Fuller’s version of metalepsis correspond to when something imaginative (SO_i) is taken to be real (SV_s)?

If I answer in the affirmative, then metalepsis occurs entirely within the content-level actuality, in the transition from the apparently mind-dependent and imaginative interventional sign-object (SO_i) to the apparently mind-independent and real specifying sign-vehicle (SV_s).

Of course, this transition is a real concern. But, it is not metalepsis.

See Looking at Daniel Dennett’s Book (2018) “From Bacteria, to Bach and Back”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for December 2023. 

Indeed, this transition leads me forward, towards the expert level, where I have already traveled and ended up asking the following.

Question: How do I pay off my student loans for my journalism degree when I cannot find success_2a?

Answer: You have already succeeded_2c by getting a degree in journalism_2b, according to the psychometric models_2b that your professors have taught you.

0203 So what is Fuller aiming at with the introduction of the term, “metalepsis”, where something imaginative (mind-dependent) is regarded as real (mind-independent)?

0204 Why is the empirio-normative judgment_2c mind-dependent?

Triadic relation are mind-dependent beings.

Why is the empirio-normative judgment_2c mind-independent?

It must be mind-independent in order to serve as the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i).

0205 What element always seems to be mind-dependent?

Opinions_2a, the interventional sign-object (SO_i).

But, aren’t opinions_2a, as specifying sign-vehicles (SV_s), taken to be mind-independent?

0206 Uh-oh,  I already went in that direction.

I must not go into the specifying sign-relation.

If I am to proceed by way of the “metalepsis” that Fuller must be intimating, I should travel backwards, tracing the structure of the interventional sign-relation, from an imaginative, mind-dependent sign-object (SO_i), consisting in opinions_2a, towards a real, mind-independent sign-vehicle (SV_i), that is located in the slot for a perspective-level actuality_2c, currently occupied by an empirio-normative judgment_2c.

0207 In order to accomplish this transit, my intellect_3a (SI_i) must operate on a potential greater than my will_1a (SI_i).

Here is a picture.

Indeed, I could say that something greater than my intellect_3a (SI_i) is required as well.

0208 In short, something imaginative (my own opinions and the opinions of those around me_2a as SO_i) is taken to be real(a perspective_c-level actuality₂ that emanates itself_2c as an interventional sign-vehicle, SV_i).

Metalepsis goes backwards within the interventional sign-relation.

0209 Now, let me flow through my discombobulated thought development, once again.

The empirio-normative judgment has the same general structure as the empirio-schematic judgment of the natural and the social sciences.

0210 The empirio-normative judgment occupies the perspective-level actuality_2c is because it is what ought be for thePositivist’s judgment. 

Or, something like that.

What ought to be for the postmodern Positivist’s judgment_2c puts the expert_b level into perspective.

0211 On the perspective level, the normal context of the one of scientism_3c brings the empirio-normative judgment_2c into relation with opportunities_1c to contextualize the entire expert level.

On the situation level, the normal context of postmodern forums_3b, where discourse is conducted using specialized disciplinary languages (expertise), brings the actuality of psychometric models of value_2b into relation with the potential of formalizing knowledge_1b, where knowledge consists of observations and measurements of social phenomena, especially in regards to what people are willing to say to a surveyor_2a.

0212 The expert_b level contains an intersection composed of two nested forms whose actualities constitute one contradiction-filled actuality.

Here, the two aspects of research ethics are reduced to adjectives for capitalist and socialist value.

The capitalist nested form contains transactional value₂ as its actuality.  Transactional value₂ concerns the causalities of financial exchange_2bB and applies to the actuality₂ on the situation_b level of the organization_B tier.

The socialist nested form contains transcendental value₂ as its actuality.  Transcendental value₂ concerns the causalities of organizational objects_2aC and applies to actuality on the content_a level of the society_C tier.

0213 Here is a picture.

Models of value_2b ought to be intelligible.

Intelligibility characterizes what ought to be for the empirio-normative judgment_2c.

0214 For the content level of the post-truth interscope, the actuality_2a is both what people are thinking and saying (that is, their opinions)_2a and what the psychometric sciences regard as phenomena_2a.  My opinion_2a can be separated into what I think_2a and what I am willing to say to someone asking me questions from a survey_2a.  The latter serve as phenomena_2a.

0215 At the same time, the content-level actuality may be formulated in the same manner as what is of the Positivist’s judgment.  What is for the Positivist’s judgment says, “The noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena.  Or, the thing itself cannot be objectified as its observable and measurable facets.”  This is a universal statement, so the following comparison applies.

Universality characterizes what is for the empirio-normative judgment.

0216 For the situation level of the post-truth interscope, the actuality_2b is psychometric valuation. If anything, psychometric valuations_2b should be intelligible, because an empirio-schematic judgment unfolds into the situation level.

The empirio-schematic judgment goes like this.

Disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).

The empirio-schematic judgment unfolds into the situation-level nested form.

0217 So, what relation (thirdness) brings the intelligibility of expert-determined valuations (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with the universality of phenomena (what is, firstness)?

In the Positivist’s judgment, the relation is the positivist intellect.  The positivist intellect has a rule.  Metaphysics is not allowed.

Perhaps, I can replace the positivist intellect with another label, “the scientismist intellect”, who is at the service of the one of scientism_3c.

0218 Here is the result.

0219 May I still call this perspective-level actuality_2c “the empirio-normative judgment”?

I suppose so.

At this juncture, the perspective level actuality_2c of what ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment shifts into what the Positivist’s judgment ought to be, in order for the psychometric sciences_2b to occupy the situation level.

Is that how the one of scientism_3c defines success_2c?

That’s not all.

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

An interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) stands for an interventional sign-object (SO_i) in regards to an interventional sign-interpretant (SI_i).

0220 Connecting all the dots, the empirio-normative judgment_2c (SV_i) projects the intelligibility of the results of the psychometric sciences_2b as what ought to be into people’s intellects_3a and wills_1a (SI_i) and expects to harvest what people say_2a (SO_i) as a universal what is.

If these connections are plausible, then the one of scientism_3c attempts to exploit the evolutionarily ancient character of the interventional sign relation in order to achieve contemporary domination of its subject populations.