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.

0221 Domination?

Will_1a underlies knowledge_1b and knowledge underlies opportunity_1c.

The opportunity_1c for what_2c?

Success_2c in projecting something intelligible_2c into my intellect_3a and my will_1a.

Where does that intelligibility_2c come from?

Of course, it_2c comes from the valuations_2b of the psychometric sciences_3b.

0222 Clearly, the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods is different from prior modern wars. This battle arrays those who think the narrative_2a and whose thoughts can be objectified as what marketers and social workers can observe and measure_2a, against those who realize that the Positivist godhead’s definition of success_2c means something other than “getting ahead”_2a.

It’s the big-government (il)liberals versus the human rats starting to realize that they are subjects in a colossal hybrid capitalist-socialist scientific experiment.

Or is it fascist-communist?

0223 May I see your vaccine passport?

The person asking the question is a “bigilib” (big-government (il)liberal) who has bought the narrative, resulting in a coherence within the content-level actuality_2a.  Such coherence provides feelings of invulnerability and belonging.

0224 The person who must comply with the question is a member of the subject population, who knows that showing the passport is an act of compliance.  Compliance does not comport with the noumenon, the thing itself, and this provides feelings of vulnerability and alienation.

Can the reader identify precisely what phenomena are being observed and measured by the experts that the bigilib reports to?

0225 Fuller does not explicitly state the answer.

Instead, he describes what he thinks now that he has come to recognize the post-truth condition.

0226 The title of chapter fourteen is “The Path From Francis Bacon: A Genealogy of the Post-Truth Condition”.  Fuller, as both professor and guide, provides an insight into how the interventional sign-relation may serve as a back door to escape the clutches of this enlightenment god.

He starts with a simple request.

0227 Only when an inquirer_2a has come to realize that the current enlightenment god_3c, intervenes in the way that he thinks_3a,1a, can this simple request be entertained.

If the reader feels a twinge of discomfort, take a look around.  Evidence abounds.  Consider Looking at Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s Music Video (2022) “Unholy” (appearing in Razie Mah’s blog on February 11, 2023).  Who is the woman in white?  What does her choice at the end of the video imply?  Cutting edge artists portray submission to the empirio-normative judgment_2c as something to be applauded.

0228 Fuller tells a story, starting with Francis Bacon (1561-1626 AD), who serves as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor under King James I.  This story serves as an interventional sign-object (SO_i) that implicates an interventional sign-interpretant (SI_i) and that implication suggests the presence of an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i).

0229 The interventional sign-relation is so odd.  It must be evolutionarily ancient, at least going back to the domestication of fire, when people find the occasion to hand-talk nonsensical statements after enjoying a big, well-cooked meal.

Say what?

I thought that hand-talk is sensible.

Yes, every gesture-word is sensible, but a fully linguistic statement can grammatically not make sense.

And, that opens the possibility of cogitating the interventional sign-relation.

0230 Hand talk relies on icons and indexes.  Icons (like pantomime) picture their referents.  Indexes (like pointing) indicate their referents.  The referent always precedes the gesture-word.  In a sense, the iconicity and indexality of hand-talk words guarantee reference.

The gesture-word is a specifying sign.  The gesture word (SV_s) specifies its referent (SO_s) in regards to what the statement means to me operating on the potential of situating the decoded content (SI_s).

0231 But what of the referent?

Is the referent itself also a gesture-word, signed by the one who signifies, without us knowing why?

If so, then the referent_2a itself  (or what I am thinking about the referent_2a) may be a sign-object (SO_i) that must have an interpretant (SI_i).   That SI_i more or less corresponds to the answer to the question, “What is happening_3a“, operating on the possibility that ‘something’ is happening_1a.

Okay, if the referent_2a of a hand-talk word itself is an interventional sign-object (SO_i), then where is the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i)?

I cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch it, but I know that it is there.

0232 In other words, the gesture-word (say, MOON) already has a referent, the moon that can be pictured or pointed to.

Is the moon itself like a hand-talk word?

If so, then who gestures it?

Once hand talk becomes linguistic, counter-intuitive, grammatically correct statements can address this question.

0233 [Point to me][point to my eyes][pantomime or point to MOON][pantomime MAN].

Tonight, I will see what the moon-man (SV_i) is saying (SO_i).

0234 So, an awareness of the interventional sign-relation is a hominin adaptation to the nature of sign-relations.

Fortunately, we evolved long before the modern constellation of enlightenment gods enters into the picture.

0235 The interventional sign-relation is embodied.

Metalepsis requires something greater than my will_1a.

The truth is greater than my will_1a.

0236 Unfortunately, in our current Lebenswelt, the one of scientism_3c is eager to place its actionable judgments_2c in the slot for the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i).

So, “my” will_1a becomes a projection of the intelligibility_2c of psychometrically determined valuations_2b.

0237 The interventional sign-relation is not only the front door for domination in the current Battle of Enlightenment Gods, it is also the back door to the one who signifies, without us knowing why.

Here is a picture of the interventional sign-relation that this examiner constructs from Fuller’s historical account.