0695 I recap.

Here are two key word comparisons between the scrappy player_a and the expert_b in regards to the post-truth condition.

0696 “Success” and “value” are crucial terms.

But, since they are spoken words, they are actualities₂ within the normal context of definition₃ that arise from the potential of meaning, presence and message₁.  The nature of spoken words is one of the central concerns of Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Clearly the scrappy player and the expert imbue the same two words with very different meanings, presences and messages.  The words sound exactly the same.  Each word may be spoken as if they have the same meaning, presence and message.  But, the potentials are not the same.  The technical definition of words like “success” and “value” benefits the expert and confounds the scrappy player.

Propaganda constitutes a war of words.

0697 Here a picture of the interscope of the post-truth condition.

0698 On the scrappy player level, the normal context of the intellect_3a brings the dyad, what I think [cannot be objectified as] what I say_2a, into relation with the potential of the will_1a.  The question has been raised.  Whose reason_3a,1a is involved in any application of the post-truth interscope?

On the expert level, disciplinary-language based expertise_3b brings the actuality of psychometric models of value_2b into relation with the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’_1b.

On the relativist one level, the normal context of the one of scientism_3c brings the actuality of an empirio-normative judgment_2c into relation with a perspective-level opportunity_1c to contextualize value_2b.

0699 Here is an example of an application.

An assistant professor_3b writes a grant_2b, proposing research that will validate a particular valuation_2b composed of financial transactions_2H that will satisfy certain organizational objectives_2V.  This grant has the opportunity_1c to occupy what ought to be for an empirio-normative judgment_2c because it is apparently intelligible (after all, the grant is written by an expert).

0700 But, why would a federal agency_3c fund the grant?

Perhaps, they_3c have a hidden agenda_1c to promote the universality of the particular political topic_2c.  They want people to encounter the topic_2a.  Plus, the research_2b does not directly reveal the hidden agenda_2c of promoting a topic that favors certain financial transactions_2H and objects^org_2V.  If the research_2b promotes the certification of more experts_3b that will write more grants_1c in this particular academic field, then why not? The agency_3c wants the grant_2c to operate as an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) that will impact the way people reason_3a,1a and influence what they think_2a and what they are willing to say_2a.  What the granting agency_3c wants_1c serves as what is for the empirio-normative judgment_2c.  The relation then becomes rewarding a grant using taxpayer’s money.

0701 Success_2c is defined as a federal agency funding the proposed grant (that is, the execution of an empirio-normative judgment).

0702 For the scrappy player, formalized knowledge_1b includes the why and how of performing specialized and productive tasks.  The psychometric expert_3b, in contrast, regards formalized knowledge_1b, as the observation and measurement_1b of social phenomena_2a, in regards to a very narrow spectrum of opinion.

Narrow spectrum?

Yes, in the instance of the funded grant, what people say_2a becomes phenomena_2a when it pertains to what would correspond to the sign-object (SO_i) and sign-interpretant (SI_i) of an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) impacting and influencing the scrappy player level.

0703 On the scrappy player level, what the player regards as “my” intellect_3a brings the actuality of what I think [and] what I am willing to say_2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in “my” will_1a.  In the post-truth interscope, “reason_3a,1a” is characterized as “the intellect_3a contextualizing the will_1a“.  “My” becomes “ours”.

0704 Plus, as depicted above, an SV_i can impose an SO_i and impact a person’s SI_i, simply by staging an event_2a (here, a questionnaire_2a) that produces the possibility of ‘something’ happening_1a in the normal context of what is happening_3a(corresponding to the content level of the scholastic interscope of how humans think).

0705 This leads to a question that is the topic of chapter ten.

0706 Chapter ten is titled, “Planet Vulnerable”.

In this chapter, Stiles confronts success_2c for the one of scientism_3c in the Fourth Battle of The Enlightenment Gods: Empirio-Normative Domination of Citizen-Subject Populations.

I suppose that spoken words are supposed to convey reality and bring us into a common understanding.  In our post-truth condition, the spoken words that the media utter convey a pseudo-reality (a web of narratives) that brings us into communion whether we like it or not (especially after media reports accompanying the narrative are shown to omit crucial truths).

0707 Currently, American media likes to label this communion as “our democracy”.

I guess that the administrative state is too embarrassed to call it “our tyranny”.

Labeling is crucial.

I love Stiles quotes, posted in the margins as addenda. Here is my restatement of one quote.

“By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see that our tyranny is ‘our democracy’ and that our success_2c is their success_2a.”

0708 Planet Vulnerable makes me think about both history and logic. 

Why are scrappy players slowly becoming more and more vulnerable?

0709 One answer starts with a question, asking “What is the content-level actuality_2a?”, and ends with the question, wondering, “What about domination?”.

Steve Fuller looks back to the start of the modern era, when mechanical philosophers completely confused theologians, by introducing a concept that seems like Aristotle’s matter and form, but really is not.  The concept is “phenomena” defined as “the observable and measurable aspects of a thing”.  It raises a question, asking, “What is a thing?”

Here is how the question breaks.  Theologians are reduced to the scrappy player level.  Mechanical philosophers are elevated to the expert level.

0710 To start, for the natural philosopher (typically, a theologian of sorts), a thing is a hylomorphe composed of two real elements, matter and form.  Matter accounts for presence and addresses questions like, “What is it made of?”.  Formaccounts for shape and function and addresses questions like, “What is it supposed to do?”

In terms of Peirce’s three categories, hylomorphic structures should belong to secondness.  Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements.  The contiguities in the above figure are placed in brackets.  Experts trained in Aristotle may shudder when reading the label that I put into brackets.  All I am doing is adding one more technical definition to the term, “substance”.

“Substance” is “the contiguity between matter and form”.

0711 Next, for the mechanical philosopher, the expert, a thing is also a dyad.  A noumenon (the thing itself) [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena (its observable and measurable facets).  There is good reason why Kant insisted on the importance of the noumenon, the thing itself. Observations and measurements of phenomena may go bonkers.  So, there must be a noumenon as a reality check.

0712 For example, on a summer day, I measure the rise in ambient air temperature from six to nine o’clock in the morning.  Then, I graph the data and model the data with a linear extrapolation.  I then predict that, by ten o’clock at night, the ambient air temperature will be greater than the boiling point of water, and we are all going to die!

Of course, my model does not account for the noumenon, the cyclical nature of the day, when the sun warms the earth in proportion to its location in the heavens, and then sets, and does not warm the earth until the following morning.

0713 The empirio-schematic judgment is a triadic relation, where disciplinary language (relation) brings observations and measurements of phenomena (what is) into relation with mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be).  Notice that the word, “noumenon”, does not appear in the empirio-schematic judgment.  Since the noumenon is a whole, it cannot be directly measured.  But, its phenomena can.  That is why scientists fixate on phenomena and ignore their noumenon.

Fixation and ignorance are threads woven into the fabric of The Age of Ideas.  Experts fixate on phenomena.  Experts ignore the noumenon.  In the process, scientist cultivate material and efficient causes that are divorced from final and formal causes.  They neglect final and formal causes.

0714 What does this discussion imply?

I suppose it means that the previous figure needs to be adjusted.

0715 Oh, that leads to more difficulties.

Aristotle’s foundational hylomorphe, matter [substance] form, corresponds to the noumenon, the thing itself, that scientists ignore.  Indeed, when a scientist becomes a triumphalist, he wants to replace the noumenon with his mathematical or mechanical model.  Then, the model (substituting for the noumenon) [can be objectified by] its phenomena.

0716 If the scrappy player level is occupied by theologians and natural philosophers, then what the scrappy player thinksand what the scrappy player says cannot be objectified as phenomena, that is observable and measurable facets of the thing itself.

How so?

For the most part, scrappy players say what they think.

Both thinking and talking represent the noumenon (but may, on occasion, concern phenomena, its observable and measurable facets).

So, what I think is like matter and what I say is like form. Matter [substance] form associates to a noumenon, a thing itself.

0717 This is confusing.

I thought that what I think corresponds to a noumenon and what I say corresponds to its phenomena.

It does for the psychometric sciences_3b.

What I think [cannot be objectified as] what I say is a construct that is imposed by the post-truth condition itself.  This actuality_2a occurs when reason_3a,1a is defined as the intellect_3a contextualizing the will_1a.  When reason_3a,1a is so defined, then expertise_3b can virtually situate it_3a,1a.

0718 So, maybe, I need to change the picture once again, where the person on the crappy player level becomes a thing(that can be studied by the psychometric sciences).

Ah, that is better.

0719 What I think corresponds to the first abstraction in natural philosophy according to Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy.  A psychometric scientist cannot observe or measure this noumenon.

0720 What I say corresponds to a philosophical discussion concerning material, efficient, formal and final causalities.

Since a psychometric scientist_3b can observe and measure the phenomena of what I say_2a, then what I say concerning the subject of investigation_2a may go into the corresponding model of value_2b.  The scientist must be selective about what is observed and measured_1b.  The scientist must discriminate in so far as the phenomena_2a must apply to what the scientist intends to model_2b.  Aristotle’s four causes are acknowledged only in so far as a scientific model (with no metaphysics) can explain their content and import.

0721 What can go wrong?  What is missing?

0722  What the scientist misses is that speaking in the way of natural philosophy turns out to be crucial for thinking.  The typical person talks about material, efficient, formal and final causes.  The scientist labors to account for such talk with truncated material and efficient causes (that is, material and efficient causes shorn of any metaphysical attributes).

0723 For example, the Torches of Freedom campaign is designed to induce women to start smoking (hidden agenda).  Several gals step out of the crowd during the Easter parade and light up cigarettes in front of photographers, who happen to be there to capture the moment in pictures. What a newsworthy event!  Matter touches base with the presence of a cigarette.  Form associates to what the cigarette is supposed to do.

The scrappy player may talk about a variety of causes.  Where does she get that cigarette (material)?  How is she at the Easter parade (efficient)?  Why is she here at the Easter parade instead of hotel that allows smoking (final)?  I did not think that a cultivated person would light up a cigarette in this type of crowd.  It’s like drinking in public (formal).

0724 These typical comments_2a may be sampled_1b and analyzed_2b in order to produce a valuation_2b that a cigarette company_3c might pay for.  The truncated material cause_2b is that this woman can afford to do whatever she wants to do.  The truncated efficient cause_2b is that smoking is liberation.  These causes explain the Easter parade event, splashed across newspapers the next day.

Plus, these causes are more real than anything that the scrappy player can infer from reports and narratives.  After all, no one reveals the truth.  The Easter parade event is staged.

0725 Yes, it seems that the experts in psychometrics are missing something about how speaking is tied to thinking.  What does the elucidation of Aristotle’s four causes do?  Talk about Aristotle’s four causes places a thing or event₂, an actuality₂, manifesting as matter [substance] form₂, into a category-based nested form.

0726 Understanding consists in a completed category-based nested form.

This point is foundational in Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024), by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.  Parts of this work are available in Razie Mah’s blog for April through June, 2024.

0727 So, what does this imply?

It implies that the scrappy player_a is open to understanding and that the expert_b is not.

The scrappy player’s understanding opens a cognitive space to immaterial causalities (formal and final).

Expert modeling constricts its cognitive space to material and physical causalities (material and efficient, divorced from formal and final).

If I associate immaterial causalities with the spiritual world and material causalities with the um… material world, then I arrive at an adjustment of the ongoing sequence of figures.

This adjustment keys into a figure in chapter 10 of Stiles’s book.

0728 This figure is not a precise reproduction.  However, it is suggestive.

The scrappy player_a may be a theologian, a natural philosopher, or someone trying to figure out what on earth is going on.  The scrappy player is interested in understanding.  Understanding entails all four of Aristotle’s causes.  So, it seems like the scrappy player wants to know the big picture, as well as the details.  Big picture items, such as final and formal causes, informs the scrappy player of directions and designs.

The expert cannot be a theologian or a natural philosopher, because the psychometric sciences are devoted to figuring out valuation in a world bounded by the intersection of capitalism and socialism.  Capitalism and socialism are all about our material world.  Both “-ism” claims to be fact-based, data-driven and scientific.

0729 The scrappy player_a and the expert_b levels are fundamentally disjointed.  The spiritual world cannot be objectified as the material world.

This is not the same as a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.

Or is it?

0730 The uncertainty is telling because the expert claims to know what the scrappy player does not know.

So I ask, “If the scrappy player knows what the expert knows, then would the scrappy player be an expert?”

No, because the expert follows the positivist intellect’s rule that metaphysics is not allowed.  And, that is not the same as being trained in the performance of specialized tasks, which is what the scrappy player calls, “expertise”.

0731 Final causes (intentions) and formal causes (designs) are metaphysical.  So, the expert concentrates on the material world and is happy explaining how what people say about final and formal causation is scientifically accounted for by truncated material and efficient causes.  “Truncated” means “divorced from final and formal causalities”.

0732 Meanwhile, the scrappy player wants to “get ahead” by becoming an expert in performing material and instrumental tasks, so he enters the realm of expertise by taking courses and getting credentialed.  But, that is not what expert_b level is all about.  The expert_b level is devoted to producing models of observations and measurements of what people say in order to ascertain a mysterious, yet materialist, value_2b, standing at the intersection of capitalism and socialism.

0733 What is even more confusing is that the valuations_2b produced by postmodern expertise_3b have material and instrumental ends_1c that offer opportunities_1c for the one of scientism_3c to make an empirio-normative judgment_2c, which often enough, is an operation sheepskin type of event_2c.

In other words, the empirio-normative judgment_2c is actionable.  The judgment unfolds into a nested form and constitutes an event that engages what people think_2a and what people say_2a.  And off we go again.

0734 Sign-relations, like category-based nested forms, are necessarily metaphysical, as well as physical.  The interventional sign-relation that is triggered with the execution of an empirio-normative judgment plays a significant role in the operation of the post-truth interscope.  For example, it explains why events (SO_i), scripted by operation sheepskin to engage our reason_3a,1a (SI_i), seem to involve a hidden agenda (SV_i).

0735 Indeed, the scrappy player_3a,1a (SI_i) tunes into the interventional sign-relation when he realizes that everything that the corporate media is talking about (SO_i) seems to have a hidden agenda (SV_i).

Of course, the trick is that any hidden agenda (SV_i) only manifests as an interventional sign-object (SO_i).  The interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) cannot be witnessed  So, the feeling that there is a hidden agenda (what I think_2a) cannot be objectified by what people are talking about (what I say_2a) for more than one reason.  One is the dyadic structure of Kant’s slogan.  Two is the nature of the interventional sign-relation, which is not apparent to experts_3b.  Three is the distinction between noumenon and phenomena replaying itself as a distinction between the content and perspective levels of the post-truth interscope.

In sum, the scrappy player_3a,1a associates to a noumenon and the one of scientism_3c is inextricably dependent on materialist analysis_2b of phenomena_1b by the psychometric sciences_3b.

0736 So here is a picture of the final adjustment for a segment that starts on point 0708 and applies to chapter ten, titled “Planet Vulnerable”.

0737 Does the passage from “What is the content-level actuality?” to “What about domination?” constitute a journey into the unnerving logic of the interscope for the post-truth condition?

The journey starts with a denial and confirmation of the post-truth condition, itself.

The non-compliant scrappy player denies (or ignores) the condition.

The compliant person on the content level conforms to (or embraces) the condition.

0738 If I confront the denier and the confirmer with a simple question, “What is a thing?”, then the denier, who is like a natural philosopher or a theologian, begins with a classical ancient Greek division that is today, discredited.

How so?

Today, no scientist observes and measures matter.  No scientist worries about form.  Neither of these real elements can be mathematically or mechanically modeled.  They are not phenomena.  They are belong to the noumenon.

0739 For those who deny the post-truth condition, Aristotle’s premodern hylomorphe, captures the esse_ce (substantiating matter) and essence (substantiated form) of Peirce’s postmodern category of secondness.  Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements.  For nomenclature, the contiguity is placed in brackets.  For Aristotle’s hylomorphe, matter and form are real elements.  [Substance] labels the contiguity.  So, the hylomorphe is matter [substance] form.

0740 If I confront the denier and the confirmer with the question, “How do we approach a thing?”, then the answers differ.

The denier admits that he is interested in the noumenon.  Indeed, he will go so far as to say that the gestalt recognition of a noumenon is one of humanity’s adaptations.  Aristotle identifies our capacity to instantly recognize both presence (matter) and form (shape) because that is what we evolved to do.

The confirmer insists that scientists are only really interested in phenomena, the observable and measurable facets of their noumenon.  So, noumena are really only useful for book-keeping.  A noumenon certifies that observed and measured phenomena correspond to the same item, itself.  So, what corresponds to the item, itself?  It depends on the type of science.  For natural scientists, noumena are natural things and processes.  For social sciences, noumena are human things and processes.  For the psychometric sciences, noumena are ones who deny the post-truth interscope.

Ha.  Just kidding.

0741 Or, am I serious?

Are the ones who deny the post-truth interscope the subjects of psychometric inquiry?

0742 The process of engaging the (now “scientifically” discredited, but conclusions are complicated because of associations with Peirce’s secondness) classical Greek structure called the “hylomorphe” produces discussion concerning material, efficient, formal and final causes.  The engagement goes with what the denier thinks.

What the denier says may be monitored as phenomena that support observations and measurements for models that account for why the denier is speaking in terms of Aristotle’s four causes.

0743 Consistent with the mystery of the psychometric sciences_2b, these models will evaluate the denier’s speech in terms of capitalist ideation, such as the willingness to pay a high price for information that the client regards as “true”, and in terms of social ideation, such as persistent neglect of the community of experts addressing the nature of things in the post-truth condition.

0744 Yet, there will be something missing in the psychometric valuation_2b of the denier’s locutions_2a.

If Aristotle’s hylomorphe₂ does indeed correspond the realm of actuality₂ as characterized by Peirce’s category of secondness, and if Peirce identifies a class of purely relational structures, whereby thirdness brings secondness into relation with firstness (or normal context₃ brings actuality₂ into relation with possibility₁), and if this currently unanticipated class of triadic relations is real enough to serve as the actuality that is independent of the adapting speciesunderlying the human niche, and if scientists cannot observe and measure triadic relations, then the denier accesses a legitimate knowledge domain that cannot be modeled by capitalist or socialist critical theory.

Now, that is one long convoluted sentence.

0745 Consequently, the figure in chapter 10 of Stiles’s book, titled “Domains of Knowledge”, describes the emergence of a legitimate domain of knowledge that belongs to the scrappy player_a level (pertaining to the denier of the post-truth condition, the one who thinks that “success_2a” means “getting ahead_2a” and the subject of the psychometric sciences).

Furthermore, that legitimate domain of post-post-truth knowledge may be described using ancient terminology, so that Kant’s slogan is mockingly parodied by a post-postmodern formulation that ridicules capitalist and socialist expertise.

What is the slogan of the denier?

The spiritual world [cannot be objectified as] the material world.

On one hand, Kant is vindicated by this parody, this mockery, that is intimated in the very need to posit the noumenon in the first place.

0746 On the other hand, this slogan forces all those confirming the post-truth condition to prepare ways for the execution of a defensive empirio-normative judgment.

Defensive?

Well, the best defense is a good offense.

0747 Here is a picture of the empirio-normative judgment_2c, that is necessitated_1c by the fact that the scrappy player_3a,1amay be on the verge of ideating a legitimate domain of knowledge that cannot be reduced_1b to the scientific paradigms_2bof experts_3b on capitalism and socialism.

The scrappy players_2a who deny the post-truth condition must be observed and measured_1b then modeled_2b in such a fashion that the scrappy player_3a,1a will be overwhelmed and will capitulate to the various normative narratives_2c that are funded by the ones of scientism_3c.

0748 Necessity characterizes the opportunity_1c.  Yet, the one of scientism_3c is not disturbed.

After all, this is the Fourth Battle of The Enlightenment Gods (1989 to present) and no other enlightenment god is left standing.

Here is a diagram of the corresponding empirio-normative judgment_2c.

0267 If what I think_2a is that “success” means “getting ahead”, and if everyone is willing to say that this idea associates to the American Dream_2a, then the American Dream is an example of e pluribus unum.

Or, if the slogan, “the American Dream”, is simply an observable and measurable facet of a common agreement (e pluribus unum), indicating that “success_2a” means “getting ahead_2a“, then the slogan is a phenomenon of its noumenon.  If the phenomenon of “the American Dream_2a“ may be observed and measured_1b, then these measurements may be modeled by experts_3b in order to establish its value_2b.

0268 So, here is how Ramaswamy’s introductory claims fit into the post-truth interscope.

0269 Postmodern expertise_3b enters into the picture, asking, “How does one observe and measure_1b the American Dream_2a?”

Well, it helps if one already has a psychometric model_2b in mind.

0270 Notice that postmodern experts_3b bring psychometric models concerning values_2b into relation with the potential of observations and measurements_1b of phenomena_2a, where phenomena_2a are what people are willing to say_2a.

People are willing to talk about the American Dream.

The American Dream is about getting ahead.

But, what does “getting ahead” mean?

0271 Now, that is a question that calls for expertise_3b.

Postmodern academics_3b propose an answer to the question of what characterizes “getting ahead_2a“.  “Getting ahead’ includes education.  Thus, the issue of the affordability of education enters into one model.  At what price does someone engage in pursuit of certification?  Plus, the issue of what goes into a formal education seems like a topic that academics might be interested in.  And, since these academics are building psychometric models, educational content must consider factors such as “self-esteem”, “emotional integrity”, “sensitivity to others”, and so on.  Plus, let me not forget, because postmodern experts consider themselves to be within the scientific tradition, metaphysics is not allowed.

In practice, the experts_3b would be happy to overlay their models_2b… er… evaluations_2b over the noumenon_2a, that is, e pluribus unum.

0272 Here are a couple of associations for a big government (il)liberal America.  Yes, that is bigilib America.

Academic certification defines success.

There is no need to argue, because experts agree.

Expertise_3b is required to address anything that we are all going to agree on_2a.

0273 Now, that I have examined the introduction and demonstrated how this examination applies the post-truth interscope to Ramaswamy’s text, I go to the end of the book.

The title of the last chapter is “Who are we?”.

Are “we” the ones who have substituted the broadcasts of the empirio-normative judgment for our own thoughts, so what we say can be objectified as phenomena for the psychometric sciences?

Or are “we” the ones who read the previous sentence and ask, “What the hell are we talking about?”

The choice is not so clear.

0274 How so?

Is the American Dream earning a diploma or is it getting ahead?

What do you think?

How can any one person convert another person to his own view when that one person, first, must think up an opinion and second, be willing to say that opinion?

Well, certainly, forums for expressing one’s opinion should be common.  Isn’t that the nature of civic society?  There are as many venues for saying what one wants to say as there are institutions to belong to.  But, how many institutions are there to belong to?  And, are those institutions sufficiently different as to allow a broad spectrum of public opinion?  Or, is there a balance between public and private?  One can say any opinion in private, provided that you have the confidence of family and friends.  But, what about in public?

0275 Experts_3b are everywhere in public institutions.

Anyone can have an opinion.  If one wants to publicly state that opinion, then some expert in synodality may be willing to listen.  Your input is phenomena_2a to be observed and measured_1b and accounted for using a specialized, disciplinary, scientific-sounding language_2b.  Ultimately, that expert_3b will offer a model_2b that characterizes value_2b according to two, apparently independent formats, the capitalist and the socialist.

It is all very scientific.

Your words are their data.

0276 If you state what you think_2a then experts_3b will take what you say_2a as phenomena_2a that may be observed and measured_1b in order to build psychometric models_2b, that, in turn, will offer an opportunity_1c for the one of scientism_3c to issue an empirio-normative judgment_2c, that is supposed to replace what you think_2a.

This is a public service announcement.

0277 Chapter fourteen discusses the bastardization of the term, “service”.

For pluralists, “service_2a” is an exercise of individual responsibility_2a.

For bigilibs, “service_2c” is defined as an activity_2c that meets criteria set forth by experts in order, value and righteousness.

Of course, “service_2c” is also defined as an activity that for which there is a market, value and price.  In short, “service” is potentially billable.

0278 Here is a picture of the post-truth interscope for this topic.

0279 Ramaswamy offers various stories about how “service_2a” can be observed and measured_1b, then formulated into a value_2b that opens the door to an opportunity_1c.  This opportunity_1c may sound like “getting ahead_2a“, but is really a chance for the scientismist one_3c to churn out an empirio-normative judgment_2c.

0280 Say what?

Ramaswamy offers hilarious stories where, what experts_3b observe and record_1b as “service”_2b (according to their models_2b) has nothing to do with the exercise of individual responsibility_2a.

In fact, it is the opposite.

0281 Consider the post-truth process of passing from situation-level value_2b to opportunity_1c in regards to an acolyte of the American system who is about to graduate from high-school.

First, psychometric models_2b may yield advisory slogans, in regards to success_2c.

Second, these slogans_2b associate to certain risks_1c and opportunities_1c.

0282 Clearly, Ramaswamy has some experience in playing this game.

The goal of the young college-bound player is to provide a “service”, that not only meets the expert-established criteria_2b, but is clever enough to catch the eye of those who read and evaluate student applications_1c.  So, entrepreneurship is involved.  The student aims to produce a product that satisfies a customer, in the hope that the customer will make an offer.

0283 It is crucial to note that the student is not trying to express his or her own opinions_2a.  The opinions of others_2a have already been sampled and formalized as data_1b by educational experts_3b using precise terminology.  Tables of criteria… er, checkboxes… define “service_2b” in ways that have nothing to do with individual responsibility_2a.  The student attempts to put expert-determined value_2b into perspective through the process of applying to a prestigious university_1c.  A formal acceptance or rejection may be considered to be an exercise of an empirio-normative judgment_2c.

0284 Here is a diagram of the empirio-normative judgment_2c for this particular topic.

0285 I have to admit that my diagram of the above judgment_2c is… well… more than what Ramaswamy discusses.  Take a look at that relation!  That relation is massively “post-truth”. The three disciplinary languages correspond to normal contexts for an interscope developed in Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind” appearing in Razie Mah’s blog between April 11 and 29, 2023.  The rest of the judgment corresponds to what Ramaswamy discusses.

0286 Success_2c for the scientismist one_3c is an actionable judgment_2c arising from an opportunity_1c to put the expert levelinto perspective.

Success_2a for the scrappy player is “getting ahead”_2a.

The question must be asked, “Is success_2c for the one of scientism_3c the same as what the scrappy player thinks ‘success_2a‘ is?”

0287 For this example, a student contrives to conduct “service” in such a way that it neglects personal responsibility_2a in favor of sales potential_2c.  Service_2c gets integrated into what I think_2a, as shown in the following figure.

0288 May I ask the question, once again?

Is “service” an act of individual responsibility?

Or is “service” what the experts say it is?

0289 Chapter thirteen explores woke consumerism and the way that people will sort themselves into like-minded groups.

Ramaswamy frames the sorting as “woke” versus “commonsense” people.

He could have used the terms, “bigilib” and “pluralist”, respectively.

Woke people say that “service” is what an expert says it is.

Commonsense people say that “service” is an act of individual responsibility.

0290 It makes me wonder.

Are woke people scientific-minded?

Do commonsense people ignore science?

0291 Or, maybe I can clarify the distinction with the following questions.

Are woke people socialist?

Are commonsense people capitalist?

0292 Here, the framework starts to muddle.  

“Socialist” and “capitalist” label opposing denkstyles in the previous Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: The Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies (1945-1989).

Each contending worldview is materialist in its own way.  The war is “cold” because no one wants to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict.  So, the so-called “Cold War” is conducted as proxy warfare, where “small” countries become proxies in contests between the capitalist USA and the communist USSR.

0293 Each contending view is relativist in its own way.

What does “relativism” imply?  

Relativism is like a language.  A language consists of two related systems of differences, parole (talk) and langue (mental processing of talk).

I already wrestle with a distinction similar to langue and parole.  The distinction is between what I think and what I am willing to say to an interlocutor.  In this example, contiguity between langue (what I think) and parole (what I am willing to say) is bimodal.  The contiguity may be [cannot be objectified as], when I have commonsense (and the observing scientist does not). The contiguity may be [can be objectified as], when I conform my cogitation to what the empirio-normative judgment wants me to think (and the scientist observes what theory predicts).

0294 Of course, I now must refute what I just claimed.

Relativism is not like a language.  It is like two languages, the language of experts on capitalism and the language of experts on socialism.  Each one of these specialized languages consists of a system of differences.  But, only one of these can occupy the perspective-level normal context_3c, for the interscope that characterizes the so-called Cold War.

0295 What do I mean?

Here is the post-truth interscope for when capitalism is in the seat of the relativist one_3c.

Note the situation-level nested form.

0296 Here is the post-truth interscope for when socialism is in the seat of the relativist one_3c.

Again, note the situation-level nested form.

0297 What is the business with the red and blue squares?

They denote the corners of a questionable box.

The questionable box of capitalism has four corners: the capitalist one_3c, opportunity_1c, intellect_3a and will_1a.

The questionable box of socialism has four corners: the socialist one_3c, opportunity_1c, intellect_3a and will_1a.

0298 Why use the adjective, “questionable”?

How many corners does a box really have?

0299 Note how the insides of the two boxes differ.

Each box contains a different situation-level nested form.

0300 For capitalism, the normal context of the market_3b brings the actuality of transactional (or maybe, “financial”) value_2b into relation with the potential of price_1b.

0301 For socialism, the normal context of order_3b brings the actuality of transcendental (or maybe, “social”) value_2b into relation with the potential of righteousness_1b.

Now, do not fixate on the adjective, “transcendental”, as if it is a metaphysical term.  It is only a label that qualifies a value_2b that may serve as an institutional organizational objective, rather than a value_2b, that is realized in a financial transaction.

0302 I suppose that the word, “value_2b“, may be a point of contention.

In fact, these two “values_2b” play central roles in the Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods (1945-1989).

Lots of ink has been spilled within each questionable box over these two expressions of expertise.

0304 Indeed, I can see why people who adhere to the socialist one_1c and people who adhere to the capitalist one_1c would want to segregate into two different jurisdictions.

0305 But, Ramaswamy’s book makes makes me wonder.

If the so-called Cold War is all about capitalism versus socialism, then why does the USA have so many socialists?

This is a good question, since it seems that today, corporate capitalists have embraced social justice.  Indeed, the subtitle of Ramaswamy’s book makes the accusation.

0306 Corporate capitalists_3b embrace socialist values_2b in order to make money.

Is it a scam?

Or, is it a tactic in the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods?

0307 Chapter thirteen discusses critical diversity theory.

Surely, each word calls to mind the post-truth condition.

What is “diversity”?  What is “critical theory”?

Well, “diversity” is the word that gets sandwiched between “critical” and “theory”.

0308 Each of these words are explicit abstractions. Each spoken word uses reason_3a,1a, defined as the intellect_3acontextualizing the will_1a.

So, I might guess that “critical theory” goes with the intellect_3a and “diversity” goes with the will_1a.

The intellect_3a produces a critical theory that engages the desire_1a for “diversity_2a“.

0309 Reason_3a,1a also acts as an interventional sign-interpretant (SI_i) for an empirio-normative judgment operating as a sign-vehicle (SV_i).

The resulting opinions [can be objectified as] phenomena_2a are sign-objects (SO_i), that may be observed and measured_1bby the psychometric sciences_2b.

The psychometric sciences generate novel configurations of capitalist and socialist expert-level nested forms that embody a single contradiction-filled actuality called “value_2b“.

0310 Now, let me say that again.

Opinions_2a on the scrappy-player level are actualities_2a created in the normal context of an intellect_3a engaged in critical theory (in some content-level fashion) and a will_1a sensing a desire for diversity (again, in some content-level fashion). Some of these opinions_2a will be regarded as phenomena_2a to be observed and measured_1b by the psychometric sciences_2b.

0311 Those scrappy players who already are under domination by the empirio-normative judgment_2c are more likely to produce statements_2a that will be regarded as phenomena_2a.

Those scrappy players who are not under domination by the empirio-normative judgment_2c may feel a social pressure to conform or issue a statement that can be regarded as relevant phenomena_2a.  Otherwise, what they say_2a will be ignored, ridiculed or dismissed.

0312 So, impressions_2a engaging critical_3a diversity_1a theory_3a on the content-level, are formalized as knowledge in the form of data_1b (that is, observations and measurements_1b of phenomena_2a).  Data_1b are then situated by the psychometric sciences_3b, employing both capitalist and socialist models_2b, constituting a single contradiction-filled actuality_2b (in this case, “diversity”), called “value_2b“.

0314 Here is a picture.

0315 Diversity_2b is the intersection of transactional (or financial) value₂ and transcendental (or social) value₂.

I suspect that theoreticians_3b involved in producing psychometric models of diversity_2b aim to maximize righteousness_1(2b) and minimize price_1(2b).  However, they_3b may end up producing models_2b that minimize righteousness_1(2b) and maximize price_1(2b).

In part, this is due to the fact that expert conclusions inspire slogans that provide opportunities_1c for the scientismist one_3cto execute an empirio-normative judgment_2c, as shown in the following figure, reminiscent of earlier figures.

0316 Once these associations pass through the sausage-grinder of legislative action and are distilled into items on a checklist, they are neither intelligible nor universal.  They are nonsensical and incredibly picky.

Hilariously, Ramaswamy wants to legislate diversity of thought, rather than the current checklist encouraging organizational objectives that come out of various bigilib committees and legislatures.

Good luck on that.