1033 Chapter nine is titled, “Stories and What They Do To Us”.
Chapter ten is titled, “Social Glue”.
The sequence follows Professor Enfield’s argument. Chapter eight is examined. What comes next is a chapter on stories. Then, these stories are treated as social glue.
However, I have already touched the tar-baby of agreeability1a. So, the “tar” of agreeability1a must be dealt with before the “baby” of the story.
1034 Here is the current version of the ever-modulating intrinsic abstraction that I call, “Enfield’s interscope”.
1035 If conversation3a replaces the normal context of what is happening3a…
…and if purely symbolic spoken words2a replace the icons and indexes of hand talk2a…
…and if the potential of ‘agreeability’1a replaces the potential of ‘something happening’1a…
…then language and reality become our adversaries.
Or…
….maybe…
…we become their adversary, the “versus” standing between language and reality.
1036 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, hand talk is a valuable resource in team work and community coordination. Linguistic hand talk is not our enemy. It is a guide that opens new cognitive spaces (that today, corresponds to the meaning underlying the word, “religion”).
Language is our friend because… well… why would the talker lie to us?
Language is a key ingredient to “our social glue”.
We evolve by adapting to be agreeable1a.
Reality?
It is not so much a friend, but maybe, it is a companion.
1037 In our current Lebenswelt, speech-alone talk is a magical tool that creates realities that we never imagined, including the academic disciplines that Enfield discusses.
Yet, Enfield cannot fully and explicitly abstract the consequences of speech-alone talk. He cannot tell us that we are the “versus” in the title. This explains why he offers stories and story-telling as key ingredients to the human social glue. This accounts for why he cannot recognize that Wittgenstein’s rule is as impossible as levitation.
We are not built for Wittgenstein’s rule. We are designed to be agreeable1a.
1038 Indeed, a close reading of chapter ten shows that Enfield concurs, even though he does not draw the conclusion explicitly.
1039 Here is a diagram of the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility for Enfield’s interscope.
The normal context of coordinating our reality1c virtually brings the actuality of human imagination1b into relation with the potential of agreeablity1a.
Chapter nine is titled, “Stories and What They Do To Us”.
Chapter eleven is titled, “Sense Making.”
1041 If chapter ten concerns how agreeablity1a is innate and allows words to frame what is happening3a and the potential of ‘something happening’1a…
…and if chapter eleven touches base on how coordination1c fosters the translation of reference2c (such as physical reality) into big-picture sensiblity2c (such awareness of social realities)…
…then chapter nine touches base with how imagination1b supports situation-level reference2b overshadowing situation-level sensibility2b.
1042 To some Hollywood producers, all movie stories boil down to a recipe.
The story about a particular cloud standing for a coming storm and bringing an end to an excursion of deer-hunting party, 750,000 years ago, does not quite fit.
Neither does the story of the researcher who realizes that he treats rhesus monkeys like some people treat humans. Dehumanization works on animals, too.
1043 So, I suppose that the story that needs to be told, for my examination of Enfield’s argument, is one where human agreeablity1a allows the story’s characters to imagine1b that they can do whatever they want to do1c.
Then, they talk to a serpent, who manipulates their agreeability1a, er… gullability1a and confounds their imaginations1b, leading them to coordinate1c a rebellion against the Source of Reality.
So, they fall into ruin because of their infraction, and never quite recover, generation after generation, until the Creator of Reality sends His Only Son, to make their descendants aware that Wittgenstein’s rule applies.
If that story is made into a movie, the title should be An Archaeology of the Fall.
1044 The mythic arc is found in Genesis 3. The scientific arc is the hypothesis of the first singularity. The stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales about the emergence of unconstrained social complexity in the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia, the first culture to practice speech-alone talk. So, the dramatic turning point, following the Greimas square re-articulation of Russell’s conjugation, looks like this.
Eve does what humans evolved to do.
1045 But now, Wittgenstein’s rule applies.
And, the story of Adam and Eve leads into a Gestalt shift, or switch, or whatever one wants to call it2c.
In the following figure, I compare the content-level nested forms for Enfield’s interscope shifting, from the foreground, into the background.
1046 If Wittgenstein’s rule is to be relevant, then it should accompany the potential of ‘a decision’1a.
From the very start, Eve is agreeable1a. Eve is not aware that Wittgenstein’s rule applies.
Only after the incident, as Eve is confronted with her transgression, does she admit that Wittgenstein’s rule applies. What the serpent told her said more about the serpent than the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Indeed, what the serpent said about the fruit may be a fabrication. But, there is an element of truth. Eve did not die immediately upon eating the fruit.
1047 Compare the situation-level nested forms between Enfield’s interscope and the background, starting to come into the foreground.
1048 What does the serpent do?
The serpent uses spoken words, which do not picture or point to their references, to create a fictive reference1b, called “all the things that we can imagine that the fruit might mean2b“. It is as fictitious as contemporary rhetorical terms such as “illegal combatant”, “unprovoked attack” and the list goes on. The spoken words2a seem to apply to physical reality, but they really are framing, and priming, a reference2a.
In social reality, reference2b [overshadows] sensibility2b. There is little doubt that the empty word “it” in the question, “What does it mean to me?”, refers to the reference2b, what the perceptive soul perceives, rather than the tangle of emotional responses2b that the reference2b overshadows.
1049 Eve’s innate sensibilities2b are overwhelmed. The animal body has three modes: approach, avoid and safely ignore. So, when something as unhinged as all the characteristics implied by the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil stands as the referent2b, then it is easy to accept that responsibility2b might not be the first reaction to come to mind. Eve irresponsibly approaches the tree.
1050 Do religious traditions offer disciplinary habits that train the individual to be aware of the easy way that reference overshadows sensibility?
Remember your vows! Remember your training!
1051 Does a religious conceptual apparatus endeavor to train the individual to be aware of our innate grounding in acceptability1a?
I suppose so. Do not be lured into conversation with the serpent. What the person says may tell you more about the person speaking than any content that comes from his mouth. The reference itself may serve as a deception. If it is too good to be true, then it most likely not true. Instead, the truth rests not in what is being said, but in the honesty of the one who is saying it.
1052 Indeed, the message that Enfield attempts to capture, but cannot quite get there with the disciplinary languages of linguistics and cognitive psychology, is that, what he calls, “coordination” is really “co-ordination”.
The normal context of language3c brings the actuality of “reference as a physical reality” [translating into] “sense as a social reality”2c into relation with the potential that the material and the immaterial, co-ordinate1c. That means that language is divine. Only the super-natural can co-ordinate matter and form.
1053 Compare the perspective-level nested forms as Enfield’s interscope fades into the background, and a new Geist constellates in the foreground.
1055 I suspect that all the ancient civilizations of the Near East believe in the divinity of spoken words. The utterances of “language3c“ are physical realities that substantially change social realities. The technical term for a change in substanceis “transubstantiation”. “Trans” means “across”. “Substantiation” means “to constellate substance”.
1056 When Adam and Eve eat from the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil2c, that act2c changes their substance from a state of original justice2c, manifesting co-ordination with God1c to a state of original sin2c, manifesting estrangement from God1c.
1057 Can one regard the garden of Eden as the first sacrament, where physical reality is transubstantiated into social reality?
1058 Of course, before the first singularity, hominins cannot gesture the term, “transubstantiation”, using hand talk.
Instead, transubstantiation is built into their bodies and souls.
1059 Indeed, the question as to whether the state of original justice corresponds to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in has been asked, on January 2, 2024, in Razie Mah’s blog.
1060 Chapter eleven completes Part III. This chapter concerns sense making.
How am I to make sense of the inverted interscope that arrives after the story of Adam and Eve enters into Enfield’s science-inspired interscope?
1061 How do I capture the Gestalt shift in speech-alone talk?
For Enfield’s scientific frame, the perspective-level contiguity is [translates into].
For the inverted frame, the perspective-level contiguity is [transubstantiates into].
Does this suffice?
The Gestalt switches from one to the other interscope.
1062 What else?
The change of Gestalts reconfigures the title.
1063 What Enfield cannot say is this.
Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
In 2022, he simply is not aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity.
1064 What Enfield cannot say may be formulated in terms of science, as an evolutionarily recent cultural transition from hand-speech talk to speech-alone talk, starting with the emergence of the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia, nominally 7824 years ago.
One day, science may present how hand and hand-speech talk potentiates constrained social complexity and speech-alone talk potentiates unconstrained social complexity.
Science may investigate how hand and hand-speech talk facilitates implicit abstraction and how speech-alone talk has a unique ability to label anything, even referents that cannot be pictured or pointed to, even referents that are quite fantastic and alluring and that exist only in the realm of possibility.
1065 Perhaps, explicit abstraction is more cunning than any animal that the Lord God creates.
Like sin, it couches at our door. It is our job to tame it.
1066 In conclusion, Enfield’s well-written book testifies to what he is not aware of.
The background Gestalt of his scientific discourse is a story, and this story steps forward in this examination of Part III, entitled “Reality Made By Language”. But, the inversion does not manifest a full Gestalt shift, because that is precisely what Enfield wants to avoid. He wants to remain a scientist, speaking the disciplinary languages of linguistics and cognitive psychology, as if they could warn us about the near impossibility of practicing Wittgenstein’s rule, because our kind evolves the trait of ‘agreeability’1a, so that our ‘imaginations’1b may align in the virtual normal context of ‘coordination’1c.
1067 Enfield’s interscope is beautiful to behold.
His interscope appears in the mirror of science. I say this while casting a glance at Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024) by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues. Portions appear in Razie Mah’s blogs for April through June, 2024. When a theologian looks at Enfield’s interscope, shimmering in the mirror of science, he responds with a theological question, asking, “What is this image revealing?”
The answer cries out for a Gestalt inversion.
One Gestalt hinges on the contiguity, “translates”.
The other Gestalt hinges on the contiguity, “transubstantiates”.
1068 The invert interscope is a wonder to behold.
Saint Thomas Aquinas might chuckle. Aquinas coined the word, “transubstantiates”.
Note how a physical reality, as simple as water, poured over the head of a baby or a child or a repenting adult,transubstantiates into the social reality of washing away the stain of original sin2c. Water is more than physical reality. Washing the stain of original sin is more than social reality.
1069 This is what the theologian projects into the mirror of theology, standing in the jurisdiction of science, as he contemplates the implications of what Enfield has written.
1070 In the sacrament of baptism, everyone in the ritual co-ordinates, in one particular recitation, starting with an answer to the question, “Do you reject Satan?”
Lucifer is an angel of light. Everything that Lucifer says tells more about Lucifer than the referent that Lucifer’s words conjure. Indeed, the referent that Lucifer’s wordsconjure is a lie. Just look at the seven of cups in a deck of illustrated Tarot cards and tell me that Lucifer’s words do not conjure this image in the mind of poor, unsuspecting Eve, who, after all, is only trying to be agreeable.
1071 Perhaps, this examination is an invitation for Dr. Enfield and other linguists and cognitive psychologists, to realize that their science has isolated us in rigid containers of empirio-schematic thought. We are creatures who evolved to live as images of God, not as subjects for the psychometric sciences.
Do not let your scientific commitments get in the way of an origin story of the ancient Near East2a, rising through the observable and measurable use of spoken words2b, and blossoming into a sacrament instituted during the most amazing revelation coming from the promised land2c.
When John the Baptist pours the waters of the Jordan over the head of Jesus, the heavens rejoice.
Here is what we evolved to be, standing at the confluence of language and reality.
1072 John Deely, the author of Four Ages of Understanding (2001), offers a label for this new world view. Welcome to the Age of Triadic Relations.
1073 My thanks to Dr. N. J. Enfield for his book, written at the cusp (yet without awareness that there is a cusp) of a new age of understanding.
In the strange world of blogs, the most recent blog appears first, so the first blog in a sequence must be placed last in any given month, in order for the blogs to be read from top to bottom.
0496 A note on timing and points.
The blog for July 2024 examines a book by British sociologist, Steve Fuller. This examination introduces the interscope for the post-truth condition, along with its embedded interventional sign-relation.
The blog for August 2024 tests the relevance of the post-truth interscope, by applying the purely relational structure to a reading of a book by American entrepreneur and um… politician (?)… Vivek Ramaswamy. Battles among enlightenment gods shape modern history.
These constitute Part One of Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
Also, in August, the post-truth interscope is shown to be much older than one would suspect. The sophists of ancient Greece run the same game as the modern post-truth condition. That implies that the post-truth condition may trace to the beginning of our current Lebenswelt. A review of an essay by Josef Pieper is the second examination in Part Two.
Now, in September 2024, the post-truth interscope is applied to a book by a physical therapist with an excellent sense of what is happening, Michelle Stiles. Decode this book in order to find out the potential of ‘something’ happening. This review is the first examination in Part Two.
Finally, in October 2024, an encore. Looking at N. J. Enfield’s Book (2022) Language vs. Reality constitutes Part Three of Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition.
0497 Here is a look at the examination of the post-truth condition and its relation to original sin.
0498 Let me sound my notes once again.
The end of Fuller’s book predicts what happens when a person in the thralls of an empirio-normative judgment2c is sacrificed to an enlightenment deity, such as the one of scientism3c. The scrappy player3a discovers that the system’s definition of “success2c“ is not what he calls “success2a“. For the scientismist one3c, “success2c” is not the scrappy player’s “getting ahead2a“. Rather, “success2c” is an exercise of an empirio-normative judgment2c.
0499 Here is a picture of the contemporary post-truth interscope.
0500 Vivek Ramaswamy’s book is a testimony to the character of expert-driven3b psychometric values2b as formalizations1b that distort what people are willing to say2a.
Oh… I did not mean to use the word, “distort”… I meant to use the word, “model”.
Psychometric studies2b demonstrate that what people are willing to say2a can be modeled according to postmodern formulations2b that encourage1cthose who “trust the science”3c to render an empirio-normative judgment2c that stands for how what people think and what people say is hurtful and objectionable2b, according to criteria2b established by those3brepresenting the most vulnerable in society1b.
0501 What is a person who thinks that “success2a” means “to get ahead by hard work and an attitude of cooperation2a“supposed to do, when thwarted by the accusation2b that such speech is euro-centric and ethno-supremacist? Keep working hard and acting agreeably? A panel of experts3b will formalize1bwhatever this scrappy player says2aand does2ainto an accusation2b that stands in the way of getting ahead.
The scrappy player is tempted to say, “Screw it. The empirio-normative judgment wins. I am outta here.”
0502 As soon as the scrappy player lays flat and looks up, the sky offers an opportunity, a screen to paint the One who Signifies, without Us Knowing Why.
This implicit abstraction is more primordial than anything that our current Lebenswelt can offer as a perspectivec-level reality2. The originating source of the interventional sign-relation is a sign-vehicle (SVi) that cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelled. How so? The interventional sign-vehicle2c (SVi) stands for what can be seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelled2a, including the odors of frustration, failure and fear2a(SOi), according to an intellect that recognizes signs3a contextualizing a will that appreciates a gift in what is being encountered1a (SIi).
This is the type of mental behavior that we (humans) evolved to perform. Humans recognize signs. Humans appreciate gifts. After all, both involve triadic relations. The human niche is the potential of triadic relations.
0503 The trick (SIi) for the interventional sign-relation comes from the fact that we experience the sign-object (SOi) and then must figure out the sign-vehicle (SVi) . Our experiences of things in the world2a (SOi) testifies to an actuality in the mind of a perspective-level being2c (SVi).
0504 Fuller, at the end of his practical guide, contemplates the SOi of himself [proposing] an account of how the post-truth condition comes to be2a. Simultaneously, the One Who Signifies3c weaves the notion of original sin2c (SVi) into Fuller’s narrative.
Original sin2c (SVi) stands for Fuller telling an origin story for the post-truth condition2a (SOi) in regards to an interpretant that is within, yet transcending, Fuller’s intellect3a and will1a (SIi).
0505 Here is a picture of the interventional sign-relation residing within chapter fourteen of Fuller’s text, following Fuller’s definition of metalepsis.
0506 Does Fuller merely relate a historical account of how the post-truth condition comes to be?
Or, is he also is making a discovery?
Or, should I say… revealing an insight?
0507 On January 2, 2024, in his blog, Razie Mah proposes that the doctrine of original sin needs to be reformulated in light of a fact. The science of genetics disproves Saint Augustine’s claim that Adam’s transgression passes from Adam to all humans through direct descent, without modification. Genetics establishes, beyond doubt, that there is no bottleneck in human evolution that would correspond to an original human pair, unless that pair exists hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Consider Looking at William Lane Craig’s Book (2021) “In Quest of the Historical Adam” and Looking at Andrew Ter Ern Loke’s Book (2022) “The Origin of Humanity and Evolution”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog in September, 2022, and November, 2023, respectively. These examinations show the futility of regarding Adam and Eve as the originators of our species, Homo sapiens.
0508 Mah’s proposal launches a strange and serious enterprise.
At this moment in history, psychometric experts3b testify that their analysis2b of what people say2a shows no need for the doctrine of original sin, except for the problem that people do not understand how the system works2c. “Religion”, once attributed to “Christian factions”, no longer has relevance compared to bureaucratic rationalizations2b that narrow formal knowledge1b into two tranches, one capitalist and one socialist, which combine into a mystery, an intersection, that is far more salient to modern society than so-called “religion”. Value2b is a single actuality constituted by the actualities of financial transaction2H and organizational objective2V. Or, shall I say, money and politics?
0509 Some of the more intellectually inclined scrappy players go so far as to call America’s government-occupying secular bureaucracy a “religion”. And, it is. But, it is not “religion” defined as “a Christian faction”.
Yes, it depends on how one defines the word, “religion”.
0510 Sophistication aside, the one of scientism3c, who rules this “system”, may well be a manifestation of… yes… original sin. How does one account for scientism3c as a person writ large, possessing the minds of apparently regular people, as institutions writ small, turning them into advocates for the scientismist one3c?
0511 Augustine focuses on disordered desires. Does a doctrine of disordered desires suffice to account for the disoriented minds that justify the deranged valuations2b of psychometric experts3b? Or, are disordered desires and disoriented minds both symptoms of an evolution-twisting cultural trajectory that is portrayed in the Genesis stories of Adam and Eve, all the way to the Tower of Babel?An affirmative answer to the second question opens the door to a second doctrine of original sin.
0512 If the early chapters of Genesis are fairy tales concerning the instigation of unconstrained social complexity during the Ubaid and the Uruk archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia, and if the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia is the first culture to practice speech-alone talk, at a time when all other cultures practice hand-speech talk,then theologians should weave the hypothesis of the first singularity into the fabric of a second doctrine of original sin.
0513 A second doctrine?
Yes, a second doctrine must account for Augustine’s first doctrine as a special application, in the same way that quantum mechanics accounts for Newtonian physics as a special application.
Inquiry into the post-truth condition may open the portal to a second doctrine of original sin.
So, I begin.
The book before me is by Michelle Stiles, the full title is One Idea to Rule Them All: Reverse Engineering American Propaganda. The book is copyrighted in 2022 and published by the author.
0514 The cover photo depicts a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Yes, experts3b are human, just like scrappy players3a.
So, they could be the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
It is the scientismist one3c that I am not sure about.
0515 This book consists of an introduction, followed by twelve chapters.
The first chapter introduces key concepts in a narrative format.
0516 Here is my version of the story that the author tells.
In 1916, after campaigning against America’s entry into the Great European War, President Woodrow Wilson is re-elected. Four months after inauguration, Wilson declares war on Germany. Four days after that, Wilson forms a Committee on Public Information by executive order. Three years later, in 1920, the former chair of that committee, George Creel, publishes a book titled How We Advertised America: The First Telling of the Amazing Story of the Committee on Public Information that carried the Gospel of Americanism to Every Corner of the Globe.
World War I, the First Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: The Tragic War Among Naive Mercantilists (1914-1918) produces a public relations bonanza for America. America makes the world safe for democracy. At least, that is one of the slogans that George Creel advances in grand style and on a taxpayer-subsidized budget. Creel introduces western civilization to a new era of government-promulgated propaganda.
0517 What does George Creel offer?
Does he sell content, or a way to situate content, or a perspective on the situation?
This question dovetails into another question, asking, “How does social construction set the stage for subsequent sensible construction?”
The enlightenment gods are in charge of social construction. The experts are expected to perform the subsequent sensible construction. The scrappy players are supposed to be situated by the experts.
0518 Woodrow Wilson does not labor in service to the American Constitution. He is in service to an enlightenment god. To George Creel, that god is Americanism. Americanism is the patriotic fervor that Creel sells.
A question arises, “What is Creel really doing?”
0519 The interscope for the society tier comes in handy here. The interscope is developed in the chapter of presence in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
There are three tiers to our current Lebenswelt of unconstrained social complexity.
520 Here is the big picture.
This nested form is undifferentiated. Each of these elements may expand into partially differentiated nested forms, producing a single three-level interscope, containing nine elements. Then, each of these elements may expand into fully differentiated nested forms, yielding three tiers of three-level interscopes, altogether composed of twenty-seven elements.
On top of that, some of the fully differentiated nested forms may expand into more refined interscopes, some of which are presented in the ten primers accompanying the masterwork in the series titled A Course on How To Define the Word “Religion” (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
Here is a picture of how the undifferentiated societyC tier expands into a partially differentiated category-based nested form.
0521 Here is a diagram of the fully differentiated interscope for the societyC tier.
0522 The “Americanism” that Creel sells is an organizational objective2aC, geared towards securing citizen “buy in” for intervention into Europe’s Great War, even though America’s founding fathers warn against precisely this type of foreign entanglement. Wilson forms the Committee on Public Information in order to substitute this objectorganization2cC for the Constitution2c, the objectrelation2c established with America’s historic founding.
0523 What gives President Wilson such daring?
Fifty years before Wilson’s election, the Constitution2c is severely challenged by the War of Southern Rebellion and the War of Northern Aggression, the winner of which turned out to be the federal government2bC.
The history is told as a fairy tale in point 0005 of An Archaeology of The Fall.
0524 In 1916, the person occupying the throne of the executive branch happens to be Woodrow Wilson, formerly President of Harvard University.
0525 Wilson empowers Creel to paper over the objectrelation2cC of the American Constitution (as well as his own campaign promise not to enter the European war2aC) with a poster of Americanism2aC. Creel does just that. He institutes an interventional sign-relation. A “vision” that America must enter the Great European War2c (SVi) stands for presentations of propaganda posters, films, speeches and more2a (SOi) in regards to the intellects3a and wills1a of people who are paid by Creel to propagandize (SIi).
Here is a picture.
0526 The professionals handling Creel’s efforts are the forerunners of experts who think that they speak for the people on the scrappy player level.
All that the weak-minded citizen needs to do is to take what the propaganda says as his or her own opinion.
0527 Creel and his associates support presentations of propaganda at locations where crowds gather and people are vulnerable.
The so-called “four-minute men” engage an audience in a film theater during the four-minutes that it takes to change a reel of film. These four-minute men testify to our patriotic duty and to our need to enter the European war. The presumption is that what the four-minute man is willing to say [objectifies] what the orator thinks. But, that is not honestly the case, since the four-minute presenter knows that he is a mouthpiece [that cannot truly objectify] the slogan that America can, and will, end war, itself.
0528 The venue for such presentations is cleverly chosen.
Practically, there can be no debate, since the films must go on. People come to see the films. So, only the time between reels is available for a testimonial.
Theoretically, each theater has no perspective other than the venue itself. Similarly, each battle among enlightenment gods has no perspective other than itself. Likewise, the relativist one3c represents no perspective other than itself.
0529 This loss of perspective parallels the slogan, popularized in the modern era, of “art for art’s sake”. Art has no perspective other than the venue itself. Consequently, official displays of artistic works defines what “art” is, not on the basis of some sort of criteria or aesthetic, but on the basis of a gallery or a museum acting as an interventional sign-object(SOi).
This is the way of the interventional sign-relation, if there is a content-level sign-object (an art gallery or museum) that can be witnessed, then there must be a perspective-level sign-vehicle (corresponding to “art” as a transcendental value) that cannot be witnessed. The interventional sign-vehicle must be inferred.
If SOi, then SVi.
This is not logic. This is the nature of the interventional sign-relation.
0530 Here is a difficulty.
Since the audiences of the four-minute men are at the film theater in order to entertained by moving pictures (which are obviously illusions), why would they take seriously anything said by an orator speaking between reels?
0531 One answer may be that the purely relational structure of the interventional sign-relation is built into the hominin mind. It may be an adaptation to hand-talk in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. After all, hand-talk itself is a key adaptation to teams (at first) and communities (after the domestication of fire).
Why not imagine that everything that we subjectively witness is the hand-talk of a supra-subjective presence? Why not imagine that a supra-subjective presence2c (SVi) stands for whatever we think and talk about2a (SOi) in regards to a normal context3a and a potential1a that each hominin exhibits (when engaged in team and community collaborative activities) (SIi)?
Plus, since hand-talk does not facilitate explicit abstraction, why not imagine that the interventional sign-relation is built into what we evolved to be?
0532 Only after the first singularity, with the ability of purely symbolic speech-alone talk to label anything and everything,can we break down the interventional sign-interpretant (SIi) into a content-level normal context3a and potential1a. Plus, we can associate these two elements to intellect3a and will1a, respectively. Steve Fuller notes that “reason3a,1a” consists of both intellect and will.
0533 Even in our current Lebenswelt, we tune into the interventional sign-relation, even when we go to the film theater with our dates. As already mentioned, the theory behind theater is that there is no hidden agenda behind the theater. The theater denies any supra-subjective being2c that otherwise might be present. I mean, it’s not like church, where a supra-subjective presence2c is palpable.
No hidden agenda2c (SVi) stands for my entertainment while attending theater2a (SOi) in regards to reason3a,1a, defined as my intellect3a contextualizing my will1a (SIi).
0534 So, what happens when one of Creel’s four-minute men takes the stage while the staff changes reels?
The interventional sign-relation changes subtly, from passively processing images that do not pertain to me to actively processing talk that recalls that I belong to teams and communities.
0535 Yes, the four-minute audience feels the actualization of an interventional sign-relation, where a suprasubjective judgment to go to war2c (SVi) stands for the four-minute orator’s words2a (SOi) in regards to “our” reason3a,1a (SIi).
A technical word for this actualization is coined by French Marxist theorist, Louis Althusser (1918-1990 AD). The word is “interpellation”. Interpellation plays a role in A Primer on How Institutions Think (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
0536 The four-minute man offers a way to fill in the terms for the content-level for the scrappy player level.
Many take the bait.
As soon as a member of the audience takes the bait, there is a catharsis. My agreement with the four-minute man [can be objectified by] what I say. “We” agree with the will1a of the four-minute man.
0537 So, my conclusion may sound a little bit theological.
This is not about truth. The orator’s announcement of the coming of the kingdom of Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information offers a way to fill in the empty elements on the scrappy player level with specific food for thought. We can enter the Great War. We can call it A War To End All Wars. Aspiration becomes inspiration. Inspiration leads to collective action.
0538 In chapter two, Stiles presents the French polymath, Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), as a forerunner to Creel’s marketing campaign.
0539 According to an online encyclopedia, Le Bon is a Parisian medical doctor who takes an interest in psychology after returning, in 1884, from an anthropological tour of India. Not unsurprisingly, Le Bon returns to Paris with a treasure-chest of artifacts, to serve as gifts to his sponsors (so to speak). Unfortunately, the politician Sadi Carnot, then Minister of Public Works, chooses an artifact that Gustave had hoped that someone else might choose. Le Bon warns Carnot, the chosen statuette carries a curse. The owner of the statuette will die upon reaching the highest political office. Carnot is not impressed. He has no need for such superstitions. He takes the statuette.
Later, Carnot is elected fourth President of the French Republic.
Then, on June 24, 1894, Carnot is assassinated in Lyon by an Italian anarchist.
0540 To me, it seems that this event, ten years in the making, would cause any sensitive soul to step back and wonder, “What the hell was that about?”
Fuller calls the process, “metalepsis”.
Here is a picture of the interventional sign-relation.
0541 In 1896, Le Bon publishes his most famous book, titled The Crowd: A Study of The Popular Mind.
He proclaims (more or less), “We have entered the era of crowds. Crowds pose a riddle for the elites who would rule over them. How does a ruler convey the coming of one’s kingdom, without speaking directly of one’s kingdom? Can science be used to trick and manipulate public opinion? Can sheep participate in constructing the very corral that will hold them in, as the elites, the wolves in sheep’s clothing, feast?”
Listen, those with ears to hear.
An Italian anarchist steps out of a throng.
The kingdom of crowd management is at hand.
0542 Chapter two contains a litany of techniques. The Christian reads the list in horror, because the techniques call to mind the ministry of Jesus, the Christ. Christ never appeals to logic. Christ entices crowds with images and parables. Christ presents simple slogans that crystallize into penetrating truths. Christ exposes illusions while presenting what seems to be madness. Jesus works miracles to demonstrate his authority. Jesus asks folk to enter his kingdom. Jesus watches his reputation spread like a wildfire. It is all there. Every technique is later codified by the students of Le Bonand packaged as ways to gain power from crowds,in an Age of Crowds.
Thirty years later, George Creel’s Committee on Public Information proclaims, “The kingdom of Woodrow Wilson is at hand.”
0543 Is this the first lesson that must be proclaimed by the one who is capable of signifying, without the scrappy players knowing why (SVi)?
Oh… I mean to say… by someone in the employ of Woodrow Wilson, when he draws America, subtly, through public information, into the First Battle Among The Enlightenment Gods: The War to End All Wars (1914-1918)?
The kingdom of a new enlightenment god is at hand.
0545 Clues are everywhere.
Consider the progress achieved in the early twentieth century. In 1913, a nationwide income tax is enacted as an amendment to the American Constitution. In the same year, an amendment to the American Constitution removes the power of state legislatures to appoint their senators and gives the decision to the crowd… er… the voters of each state. In the same year, the Governor of the state of New York, William Sulzer, approves the charter of the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Foundation receives a $100 million dollar donation by John. D., himself.
0546 For those who have eyes to see, behold the coming of the kingdom of John D. Rockefeller. Consider the masterpiece titled, Libido Dominandi (2000, Fidelity Press) by E. M. Jones.
0547 In chapter three, Stiles recalls Noam Chomsky’s book (1988), Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky tells the story of Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), adored as the most influential journalist of the 20th century and regarded as the father of modern journalism. Lippmann wrote books disparaging the public at large, questioning their ability to function as intelligent members of society. In short, people are too stupid for democracy.
0548 Still, people love the word, “democracy”.
Perhaps, the elites may script a self-serving fiction about “democracy”, where “democracy” empowers the elites in an Age of Crowds, because the elites represent the common folk.
We must protect “our democracy”, from everyone who does not buy into elite narratives.
0549 Democracy never appeals to logic. Democracy entices crowds with images and parables. Democracy presents simple slogans that crystallize into manufactured “truths”. Democracy exposes the ambitions of its opponents, while presenting what seems to be madness, wrapped in slogans promoting liberty, equality and fraternity. Democracy works miracles, demonstrating its authority. Those who promote democracy with donations of, say, $100,000,000, ask folk to enter the kingdom, then smile as the sheep build their own corral.
0550 What is necessary to define the word, “democracy”?
The experts will tell.
0551 The first amendment enshrines freedom of the press. But, what is freedom? Is the press free to call upon experts funded by the private Rockefeller Foundation in the support of public legislation, which will be passed by senators, who are now directly elected by the citizens of each state? Do those citizens buy into the concept of “our democracy”? Are those citizens subject to the techniques of crowd management?
Is “freedom of the press” now “the liberty to spread values determined by highly educated… er… credentialed experts”?
0552 In 1919, Upton Sinclair writes The Brass Check: A Study in American Journalism: Evidence and Reason Behind The Media’s Corruption.
In 1922, Walter Lippmann publishes his masterwork, Public Opinion, arguing that experts are necessary to sift through complex data (observations and measurements of phenomena) in order to guide the masses to the optimum decisions.
Surely, a citizen of the original thirteen colonies would applaud Upton Sinclair for his honesty.
Surely, a citizen in the Age of Crowds would follow Lippmann’s argument because expert reviewers extol Lippmann’s appeal to reason3a,1a, where the intellect3a contextualizes the will1a and the will1a has no desire for truth.
0553 What does the will1a desire?
In the Age of Crowds, the will1a does not desire timeless transcendentals, such as truth, beauty, wisdom, salvation, friendship, and so on. The will1a desires “the transcendentals” of crowds: liberty, equality and fraternity.
Almost twenty years before the Second Battle of the Enlightenment Gods, the Hot War Among Fraternal Ideologies(1938-1945), Sinclair celebrates a new age of fraternity, trying to be born. Sinclair says that the press ought to assist the birth. Instead, the press insists on killing the child in the womb.
0554 Little does Sinclair know that the demon-gods of the hot war among fraternal ideologies incubate in-vitro in the crib of what the press fails to say and who the press is beholden to.
0555 Lippmann’s vision is further refined during the Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: The Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies (1945-1989). Ownership of broadcasting media (radio and television) consolidates. The Central Agency for Intelligence initiates a systemic infiltration of corporate media.
There is resistance. Stiles presents a list of whistleblowers spanning from 1908 to 2020.
0556 By the start of the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: Empirio-normative Domination of Subject Populations in the Post-Truth Condition (1989 to present), corporate media and government collaborate. Experts infiltrate every American institution.
According to Stiles, intentional biases and outright deception replace the quest for truth3a,1a.
Yes, such may be the case. But, the suggestion can be made for a transformation of the hidden agenda (SVi) that no one can see, but everyone knows is there. What else would explain (SIi) what we think and see (SOi)?
0558 Chapter four discusses techniques of stagecraft. A staged event2c captures the awareness3a,1a of the scrappy player level. That awareness2a is situated by experts3b. Then, expert valuations2b open an opportunity1c for the one of scientism3c to execute an empirio-normative judgment2c.
Once again, here is a picture of the interscope for the post-truth condition, derived from an Looking at Steve Fuller’s book (2020) “A Player’s Guide to the Post-Truth Condition”.
0559 An execution of an empirio-normative judgment2c is an occasion for stagecraft2c. So, stagecraft keys into the operations of an interventional sign-vehicle (SVi).
An empirio-normative judgement2c (SVi) stands for what I think [which cannot be objectified as] what I say2a (SOi) in regards to my reason3a,1a (SIi).
0560 In previous figures, I depict the SVi activating the SIi then leading to a SOi.
But, this depiction misleads in so far as it suggests that this triadic sign-relation is a sequence of two dyadic relations. It is not. Three elements are simultaneously in play. Two of the elements belong to the realm of actuality, SVi (green) and SOi (tangerine). The third element belongs to the realms of normal context and potential, SIi (purple).
0561 Color-coding the interventional sign-relation allows me to visualize the triadic relation that stagecraft captures.
0562 Color-coding also suggests that the content-level of the post-truth condition is more complex than it first appears.
Already, I know that the content-level is a site of contention, because professional agents of media and expertise produce specific content-level nested forms designed to be accepted wholesale and incorporated into the general content-level nested form for the scrappy player. Indeed, a technical word for players who have wholesale “bought into” a prepackaged specific content-level nested form is “woke”. Others use the technical term, “zombie”.
0563 For the current battle of enlightenment gods, I use the term “bigilib”, for big government (il)liberals.