0601 Needless to say, stagecraft is a rich man’s sport.

Plus, psychometrics is the science behind the sport.

0602 In chapter five, Stiles discusses why the word, “propaganda”, is damaged goods.

Creel’s success in the First World War and Edward Bernay’s success at marketing for American corporations leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the scrappy players.

0603 One sour note concerns exactly whose intellect_3a and will_1a constitute reason_3a,1a on the scrappy player level.

Stagecraft, done well, presents the scrappy player with a “filled in” content-level nested form, ready made to swallow whole.  In the figure below, “my” intellect_3a and the broadcast intellect_3a are confounded.  So, are “my” and “the target’s” will_1a.

When stagecraft succeeds, my reason_3a,1a becomes what it_3a,1a is targeted to be.

0604 The propaganda techniques used during the First World War left many Americans feeling betrayed.  They felt duped.  The psychometric sciences performed so well.  Too bad that the stagecraft was later shown to be exactly that.

Exactly what?

Shall I say “pure theater”?  Or, should I say “deception”?

0605 I suppose that the complainers sound like Eve, after the Fall, vexed at the cunning trick that led her into error.

The serpent’s spoken words tell her precisely what to think, and she turns its propaganda into her own actions.

How stupid is that?

0606 Another sour note concerns the categorical nature of what I think compared to what I say.  

A categorical shift occurs, precisely mimicking the Kantian slogan, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.  Both a noumenon (the thing itself) and its phenomena (its observable and measurable facets) are real elements.  The contiguity between them contains a negation, so no matter how many observations and measurements one makes, one can never objectify the thing itself, which is the subject of natural experience.

0607 However, (and this point gets confusing) the noumenon and its phenomena belong to the same entity.  So, the apparently real elements in Kant’s slogan are distinctions which cannot ever be separated.  A noumenon does not exist without its phenomena.  Phenomena do not exist without their noumenon.  Yes, both labels apply to the same entity.

Got that?

0607 Kant’s slogan constitutes what is of the Positivist’s judgment.

The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 AD), introduces the noumenon in order to balance an imbalance.  Scientists are only interested in observations and measurements of what can be observed and measured, that is, phenomena.  A century after Kant’s slogan takes shape, scientific circles argue that they should be able to dispense with the noumenon, the thing itself, altogether.  Veil the noumenon with scientific models.

Can I apply this to what I think_2a?

0608 Yes, the distinction between what I think and what I say compares to the distinction between a noumenon and its phenomena.

0609 What I think may be diagrammed using the scholastic interscope for how humans think.  Nine elements operate simultaneously to achieve a living thing, a human thought.  Imagine trying to perform that operation in a computer simulation!  What I think, like a noumenon, is holistic.  It is what we (humans) evolved to do.  It is a subject for philosophical discourse.  It is no accident that the transcendentals, including truth, come into play in the interscope for what I think.

The problem?

What I think cannot be directly observed and measured by the psychometric sciences.

0610 What I say can be observed and measured.

What I say is the unfolding of the perspective-level judgment.  

The actionable judgment goes like this.  Wisdom (or some other relation, thirdness) brings the universality of sensations embedded within what people say (what is, secondness) into relation with the intelligibility of perceptions (what ought to be, firstness).

The category-based nested form goes like this.  The normal context of wisdom, or some other transcendental₃ brings the actuality of the universality of sensation₂ into relation with the potential intelligibility of perception₁.

0611 The hang-up comes when looking at the content-level actuality_2a.

What I think_2a does not match what I say_2a.

0612 The category of secondness is the realm of actuality.  So, actuality should stand out in regards to what I think as well as what I say.  What stands out for what I think?  What stands out for what I say?  They aren’t the same.

Perception concerns my perceptive soul informing my reactive body, as in phantasms generating emotions.

Sensation is all about my active body substantiating my sensate soul, as in a scent generating a feeling.

0613 So, what is the first question that a postmodern journalist asks someone about a staged event?

Of course, the first question is “How do you feel about the incident?”

Stagecraft provokes the perception.  The survey question asks for the sensation.

There is a method to this madness.

For the psychometric sciences, what I think goes with the noumenon and what I say corresponds to its phenomena.  The expert_3b builds a model of value_2b based on observations and measurements_1b of phenomena_2a.  If the one of scientism_3csees an opportunity_1c for that value_2b, an empirio-normative judgment_2c will be executed.  Another incident will occur, and now the media is already prepared with a narrative and a model, designed to overlay onto my judgments_2a, my perceptions_2a and my sensations_2a, in order to to guide me as to what is the universal and intelligible thing to do_3a.

0614 Twenty years after the end of the First World War, and at the opening of the Second World War, concerned Americans establish an Institute of Propaganda Analysis.

They first try to sift good from bad propaganda.

That does not work.

America enters the Second Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: The Hot War Among Fraternal Ideologies (1938-1945).

0615 Chapter six is titled, “The Infrastructure of Belief”.

Le Bon sets the metaphor.  If beliefs are like buildings, then what are the main pillars that hold up the construction?  Once identified, the infrastructure of belief may account for how propaganda is more persuasive than appeals to logic.  Propaganda targets the infrastructure of belief.

0616 Le Bon identifies five pillars.  Stiles claims that these pillars are hard-wired into the human brain.  She also says that they correspond to trusted sources in a community.

Here is a list of pillars, along with the corresponding trust.

0617 Where would the pillars apply in the post-truth interscope?

In modern construction, the soil is too unstable to support a multi-story structure of concrete and steel.  So, architects call for pillars to be driven down, into the bedrock, which may be under meters of soil, in order to assure the stability of the ground beneath the building.  In effect, the pillars drive through the organic material above the bedrock with shafts of steel-reinforced concrete.

Unfortunately, if modern construction serves as a metaphor.  Then, the organic material above the bedrock, what we otherwise would call the “ground”, is the thing that the pillars of the elite edifice of the situation and perspective levels of the post-truth interscope pass through.

0618 In other words, the five pillars drive through the content-level actuality, which is the contiguity between what I thinkand what I am willing to say.

The pillar-driving metaphor offers another avenue for appreciating Stiles’s argument.

0619 In the following diagram, I arrange the five pillars so that they drive through the bubbles for what I think and the ellipse for what I say.  I do so by putting Le Bon terms as drivers (proceeding from the top) and reinforcers (supporting from the bottom).

0620 Let me start with thirdness.

Authority comes down on my judgment.  Only I have the authority to bring the intelligibility of my perceptions into relation with the universality of my sensations.  Only I have the authority to relate my emotions to my feelings.  Only I have the authority to relate what I think is going on with what I see going on around me.  Until, of course, I find myself wrapped up in the sign-object of an interventional sign-relation.

Social pressure moves aside any wisdom that I might say.  Remember that wisdom (thirdness) is the relation between the intelligibility of my perception (what ought to be, firstness) and the universality of my sensation (what is, secondness).  Social pressure works directly on wisdom, replacing it with its own, already formulated denkstyle.

0621 What about secondness?

Imagination is a potential underlying perception.  But, this is not my imagination.  This is the imagination that is wrapped up in stagecraft.  In regards to what I think, imagination makes the perception that stagecrafters want me to conjure more real, but not necessarily more intelligible.  Oh, their imaginary perception may seem more intelligible, because it is already embedded in the staged event.

Language can drive through the universality of sensation. Sensation is the gateway to perception.  What is happeningunderlies what it means to me.   Sensation associates to the active body (complete with its five senses and internal sensing mechanisms) substantiating the sensate soul (the actuality of feelings, qualia and experience, in the most foundational sense of the words).  When I turn to my colleague and ask, “Did you feel that?”, “that” is a sensation.  

If my colleague (or a broadcast announcer) offers a statement formulating how I should feel, then that statement is decoded immediately, because sensation is universal.  In staged events, a reporter tells me what my sensations are.  So, when I hear about an “unprovoked attack”, then I know how that feels.  It feels like being mugged.

0622 What about firstness?

0623 In regards to what I say, externally driven imagination makes perception more plausible. The person hearing the speaker’s words has to wonder, “Would this make sense if I were in the speaker’s situation?”

Imagination targets intelligibility from below.  Firsthand reports are so effective in stagecraft.  If what a so-called “victim” says adds to the plausibility of the narrative, then that goes right through any scrappy player’s attempts to figure out what really happened.   Stiles tells the story of Elizabeth O’Bagy, who wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about her first-hand knowledge of the “moderate” Syrian opposition. Her op-ed turned into a lesson in stagecraft.

0624 From above, the scrappy player allows his own experiences of prior staged events to color the way his active body substantiates his sensate soul.  If a person lives through one lockdown, then a later, second, lockdown is less shocking.  If the person is confronted with one police officer asking for papers, the person is less shocked when police officers show up in the subway, asking to look in people’s bags.  Habituation is crucial.

The window of stagecraft always shifts towards greater surveillance (the experts need data to do their job) and control(including, the political power necessary to conduct psychometric experiments).

0625 Le Bon’s five pillars are like metal pylons piercing the organic ground of the human mind.

And what a building LeBon’s pillars support.

Today’s post-truth edifice has experts on the many floors.  Experts in natural science are located on the ground floors.  Experts on social science are on the floors above the natural scientists.  Experts on the psychometric sciences occupy still higher floors, high enough to have their own elevator. In the penthouse, the one of scientism resides.  In order to get to the elevator to the penthouse, one has to change elevators at the highest floor of the psychometric sciences.

0626 Yes, the metaphor of modern construction portrays the five pillars that Le Bon reveals as foundational supports, driven like steel pylons through the organicity of our human minds, to the bedrock of a geological formation that we cannot see, because our own awareness covers that foundation, like soil covering bedrock.

0627  My God-given authority is challenged by the fact that what I think_2a and what I say_2a is pierced, and becomes the thing that gardeners will landscape, because the pillars supporting the edifice of empirio-normative stagecraft goes through our organic minds, with shafts of explicit abstractions that are as sturdy as concrete and steel.

Now, a compromised intellect_3a contextualizes what I think_2a and pillar-pierced will_1a undergirds what I am willing to say_2a.

0628 Can I assert that “my intellect_3a” and “my will_1a” constitute the normal context and potential on the scrappy player level?

Or, have interventions by empirio-normative judgments (SV_i) activated my intellect_3a and my will_1a (SI_i), again and again, in such a fashion that they are no longer “mine”, but “ours”.  It takes a village to raise a child.   It takes a laboratory to raise a compliant citizen-subject.

So now, my God-given intellect_3a and will_1a have been donated to the psychometric sciences_2b as subject matter to provide valuations_2b that can be used as opportunities_1c to conduct (using my taxpayer dollars) further empirio-normative interventions (SV_i).

0628 Slowly, what I think transfers “my” wisdom, universality and intelligibility to “our” authority, imagination and experience.  What I say transmogrifies into a product of social pressure, label-manipulation and pre-packaged imaginary scenarios, which are intelligible, only in the way that a lie that may get someone out of being accused of a crime is intelligible. 

0631 Here is a picture of the associations rendered above.

0631 One of today’s fashion statements is body-piercing and tattoos.  If body-piercing is an interventional sign-object(SO_i), then what, I ask, is the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i)?

0632 Well, that question is very difficult, because I cannot see an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i), even though evolution has prepared me to be aware of its presence_2c.

So, let me ask an easier question.

The interventional sign-relation couples perspective and content levels.

The specifying sign-relation couples content and situation levels.

0633 So, here is the question.

If body-piercing is a specifying sign-vehicle (SV_s), then what, I ask, is the specifying sign-object (SO_s)?

Yes, the specifying sign-vehicle (SV_s) is a content_a-level actuality₂.

And, the specifying sign-object (SOs) is a situation_b-level actuality₂.

0634 So, once again, what does body-piercing specify?

Well, I suppose it_2a says something like this, “The normal context of social pressure₃ brings the language of body-piercing₂ into relation with the possibility of my imagination₁.”

0635 What is someone who has body-piercings thinking?

The normal context of my own authority₃ brings the actuality of my imagination₂ into relation with possibilities inherent in the experience of being pierced and tattooed₁.

0636 So, take a look at the following content-level actuality_2a and ask, “What the hell is going on?”

0637 Do body-piercings and tattoos signal that the pierced and inked one is just a hunk of meat suspended on the five pillars of propaganda?

It sounds horrible to say it that way, but surrender can also be regarded as liberation.

Once I am liberated, then what I think can be objectified as what I say by way of body-piercing.

Is that not the nature of fashion?

Everyone wants to see and be seen.

0638 Fashion, the arts, the corporate media, and everything else American conduct stagecraft.  Stiles lists institutional bulwarks, basically floors of experts belonging to the tower of the one of scientism, in the following manner.

0639 Experts package the imagination.  Experts regulate the language.  Experts make sure that no-one who does not align with the scientismist one will ever be promoted.  Experts publish essays ridiculing perceived oppositions.  Professors demand that each student recite their lessons.  Experts plan and execute events that capture the awareness of scrappy players, especially the ones who have surrendered, as well as the ones who do not quite understand what they are becoming.  Scrappy players_2a are the ones who provide the data_1b for experts_3b to model_2b.

0640 Chapter seven discusses the systematic manipulation of the pillars of belief.

Stiles calls the process, “operation sheepskin”, in a tongue-in-cheek reference to various covert (yet, later disclosed) initiatives of the Agency of Centralized Intelligence.

As Stiles tells it, opportunistic manipulations of the pillars of belief are already ongoing at the end of the nineteenth century, as seen in the way that Southern Railroad covered the tracks of their systematic exploitations by paying for news stories that extolled their… um… reputation for honesty in commerce.  Yes, that’s the ticket.

The press is compliant, because the ticket is where the money is.  Plus, those who were systematically ripped off don’t have any money.  Funny how it works that way.  Heads I win. Tails you lose.

0641 Savvy observers in the late 1800s and early 1900s note the trend.  These observers codify the techniques of crowd manipulation.  The first step in crowd manipulation is to find a crowd.  The second step seems to be, “Start a rumor.”  Well, that sounds precisely the job for the newfangled newspapers printed on cheap paper.  There is always someone who is cooking the books who will offer an opportunity for someone to make dough by publishing a story with a hidden agenda_2c.

Of course, the reader who wants to be informed does not regard the hidden agenda.  The reader sees all the news that is fit to print.

0642 Here is a picture of the post-truth interscope for the early 1900s.  The details on the printed page are true, but the hidden agenda is not revealed.  Indeed, if material that is intentionally omitted becomes available, then it becomes clear that a planted story has been… um… cooked up.

But, that does not change the newspaper’s slogan, “News that you can trust!”

0643 Clearly, at this time, the press reports news that people are interested in.  After all, the main source of revenue for newspapers is subscriptions or people paying for a copy of the latest print.  For the most part, editors and writers do not promote values that contest the values of the paying customer.

But, the “culinary customer”, you know, the one with dough, (as well as, a taste for manipulation and propaganda) savors the occasional foray into stagecraft.  In stagecraft, the press reports an event that is designed to further a hidden agenda.  In order to do so, the content-level of the newspaper’s reason_3a,1a differs from the content-level reason_3a,1a of the scrappy player, in such a way that the player’s reason_3a,1a becomes a target for manipulation.

0644 Of course, if the crappy player replaces his own reason_3a,1a with the targeted reason_3a,1a provided by a press release, then what the crappy player thinks can be objectified as the media narrative that the crappy player recites.

May I call that replacement, “submission”?

Submission calls for recitation, while critical thinking calls for interpretation.

But, how can one interpret any newspaper report when information that does not conform to the media narrative is intentionally omitted?

That is what hidden agendas tend to do.

Hidden agendas hide information.

0654 One may wonder.

How far can this manipulation go?

That is the question that operation sheepskin intends to answer.

0655 Well, the Committee on Public Information provides an early assessment for operation sheepskin.

Here is a picture.

0656 How far can this manipulation go?

The manipulation can go as far as the one who cooks the books_3c needs.

Indeed, during the Second World War, The Second Battle of the Enlightenment Gods, the Hot War Among Fraternal Ideologies (1938-1945), the ones who cook the books_3c come one step closer to Fuller’s concept of the relativist one_3c, as the one outside of all jurisdictions.  Public-private partnerships enter the picture in significant ways.  Plus, these book-cooking collaborations_3c set the groundwork for the Third World War, The Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods, the Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies (1945-1989).

0657 But, before I go to chapter eight, I want to linger in the claim that Stiles makes at the end of chapter seven.  Stiles connects the way that the five pillars work to the architecture of the human brain.  This connection provides an excuse for a review.

0659 How does Stiles explain this connection?

Here is a picture of the intensity of a stagecraft event with the corresponding emotional response.

This is a picture of stimulus (left column) and response (right column).

0660 How should I diagram this portrayal of cause and effect?

To start, the empirio-normative judgment_2c targets the reader’s intellect_3a and will_1a.

Thus, the cause is press reports overlaying the content level of the post-truth interscope.

The effect is how the reader’s intellect_3a and will_1a responds.

0661 The reported events and the media narrative_2a work coherently, because any reports that muddle the narrative are selectively omitted.  However, the naive reader does not know this.  The naive reader presumes that the events and narrative are true.  The post-truth reader does not make that assumption.  The post-truth reader knows that material most likely has been omitted, even by media outfits who proclaim themselves to be “trusted sources”.

0662 Nevertheless, the psychology of what I think comes into play, along with the derivative character of what I say.

Recall that the premodern scholastics develop the concepts that go into the postmodern scholastic interscope for how humans think.

Impressions_2a and feelings_2a occupy the content level.

Phantasms_2b and emotions_2b occupy the situation level.

Decisions_2c and judgments_2c occupy the perspective level.

All three levels contribute to what I think in the post-truth interscope.

0663 In the stimulus-response scenario, emotions_2b takes center stage for how humans think.

If Stiles is correct, the normal context of targeting the intellect_3a and the potential of targeting the will_1a aims to influence the actuality of emotions_2a in what the scrappy player thinks_2a.

0664 But, there is a trick to turning what I think into what I say.

I think my impression_2a, feelings_2a, notions_2b, emotions_2b and my judgment_2c.

I say my judgment_2c.  My judgment_2c is not the same as what I think.  My judgment_2c is an element of what I think .  What I think consists in the entire interscope.  My judgment_2c is the element that ends up getting turned into spoken words.

0665 My judgment_2c is a triadic relation consisting of three elements: relation, what is and what ought to be.  When each element is assigned to one of Peirce’s categories, the judgment is actionable.  An actionable judgment unfolds into a nested form according to the assigned categories.

0666 Everyone has spontaneous impressions_2a and feelings_2a that seem more actual than the situating perception_2b, except for two types of people: experts and those who have submitted to operation sheepskin’s targeting of normal context_3a (of “our” intellect_3a) and potential (of “our” will_1a).

0667 When an operation-sheepskin affiliated event is staged, the event is crafted as to produce sensations_2a and perceptions_2b that cohere with the media report and narrative.  The interscope for how humans think has already been mapped out, intentionally (for the event) and without apparent intention (for the hidden agenda), by the perspective-level actuality_2c of the post-truth interscope.

0668 What the media says about a staged event inscribes a judgment_2c that is subtly different from human judgments.

Here is a picture.

How I make sense targets the intellect_3a of the scrappy player.  What I sense targets the will_1a.

0669 Take a long look at my judgment_2c and the targeting judgment_2c and see whether you can locate a subtle difference.

Now consider the following.

0670 For my judgment_2c, what ought to be, the intelligibility of my perceptions, is assigned to the category of firstness, the realm of possibility, for right reason.  No one person ever knows whether one’s perceptions are correct.  My notions_2band my emotions_2b constitute the location where my fallibility plays out.  My judgment (relation, thirdness) offers something universal (what is, secondness) and the potential of something intelligible (what ought to be, firstness).

For the targeting judgment_2c, what ought to be, the media narrative, is assigned to the category of secondness, the realm of actuality, for sinister reason.  The impact of an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) depends on how believable the sign-object appears to be (SO_i), otherwise the targeting interventional sign-interpretant (SI_i) will not engage.  The media offers something intelligible (what ought to be, secondness) that is supposed to overwhelm my own phantasm and emotions (what ought to be, firstness) is the same way that actuality triumphs over possibility.

0671 What does this imply?

The scrappy player accepts his own fallibility.

Those who engage in propaganda cannot admit their fallibility.

Perhaps, this is a first approximation for how the pillars of the infrastructure of belief penetrate the scrappy player’s mind.

0672 Chapter eight brings the stagecraft of “operation sheepskin” into the construction of pseudo-reality, called “operation spider’s web”.

Stiles outlines the intertwining of hidden agendas in this, the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods (1989-present).

The hidden agendas formerly disguised themselves as “capitalist” and “socialist”.

Now, capitalism and socialism intersect in a mysterious single actuality, labeled, “value_2b” in the post-truth interscope.  They do so because both fields of expertise have taken on the style of empirio-schematics, thereby constituting the psychometric sciences.  Journalism, advertising, human resources, communications, organizational analysis, criminal justice, education, counseling and social work are among the current labels for psychometric disciplines.  Each “science” takes on the style of the natural sciences.

0673 The empirio-normative judgment_2c is executed by the One Relativist Who Rules Them All_3c, whenever the opportunity arises_1c.  The empirio-normative judgment_2c acts as though the positivist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the universality of phenomena of ‘what people say’_2a (nevermind the noumenon; what is, firstness) into relation with intelligibility of psychometric valuations_2b (what ought to be, secondness). 

0674 I must not forget that an interventionist event_2c (SV_i) activates what I think_2a (SO_i) and what I think_2a corresponds to the scholastic interscope for how humans think.

The following figure compares elements occurring in the scholastic interscope for how humans think to corresponding elements from the empirio-normative judgment_2c for the post-truth interscope, as they would be expressed during an event staged in operation sheepskin.

Here are targets within what I think.

0675 Secondness for the empirio-normative judgment targets the level of secondness in what I think.

Firstness for the empirio-normative judgment targets the level of firstness in what I think.

Here, the subscripts “a” and “b” refer to the levels of firstness (content) and secondness (situation).

0676 Secondness, the realm of actuality, emerges from and situates firstness, the realm of possibility.  Secondness tends to solidify one possibility among a suite of possible options.  Perceptions may reinforce sensations.  Perceptions may also overwhelm impressions and feelings.

Firstness, the realm of possibility, may support or undermine secondness, the realm of actuality.  If firstness narrows into only one possibility, then the corresponding actuality in secondness appears inevitable.  If firstness offers an alternate possibility, then the corresponding actuality in secondness becomes questionable, if not impossible.

0677 The media narrative (in the above figure) associates to secondness, the realm of actuality, for the empirio-normative judgment_2c, while my phantasms and my emotions associate to secondness alone (an actuality₂ on the situation_b level) for what I think.  The media narrative presents itself as real, as if the pseudo-reality is intelligible, rather than a confabulation that favors the one who has paid for the narrative_3c.  In contrast, my notions and my emotions are fallible, when it comes to my judgment in what I think.

So, my perceptions_2b in what I think hold the character of realness, rather than intelligibility.  Intelligibility is assessed with judgment_2c.

In contrast, media narratives posit intelligibility, as well as realness, thus bypassing the scrappy player’s perceptions_2b.  My judgment_2c goes into what I say.  What I say becomes phenomena for the psychometric sciences.

Media reports of staged events associate to firstness, the realm of possibility, while my sensations associate to secondness and firstness (an actuality₂ on the content_a level) for what I think.  Media reports tend to undermine my own impressions and feelings by offering a manufactured incident for my reactive body and sensate soul to respond to.  I read the news item.  I am not witnessing the event.  My impressions and feelings might be totally different if I am in the midst of the action.  The media report is potentially universal.

0678 Overall, the elements within the overlay (SO_i) spawned by the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) target elements of within the actuality of judgment_2c assigned to the same category.  This influences what I say, and has already been mentioned in points 0668-0670.

Here is a picture comparing secondness and firstness for my judgment_2c in what I think with the corresponding categories in the empirio-normative judgment_2c in the post-truth condition.

0679 If I multiply this targeting across a host of oligarch-supported agencies and institutions, message-produces and message-spreaders, wizards and mouthpieces, then the difficulties of the scrappy player appear formidable.

No wonder elites have taken to openly ridicule the “deplorables”.

0680 However, there is one more comparison that must be made.

One comes from judgement_2c in the interscope for what I think.

One comes from the empirio-normative judgment_2c for the post-truth condition.

Here is a question.

What constitutes “success”?

0681 All spontaneous traditions associate “success” with “getting ahead”, that is, personal prosperity.  The more religious the tradition, the more “getting ahead” takes on a relational aspect.  The logical extreme, found in all religious traditions of the Axial Age, is the beatific vision, consisting of sensing (content-level actuality) and perceiving (situation-level actuality) the One Who Brings All Into Relation (perspective-level actuality).  Here, the One is a triadic relation, where the Universality of What Cannot Be Sensed (the what is of purely relational being) and the Intelligibility of What Cannot Be Perceived (the what ought to be of purely relational being) come into um… Pure Relation (the third element of a purely relation being).

The beatific vision defines “success_2c“.

All material achievement_2a pales in comparison.

0682 But, the Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies takes its toll.

Almost every scrappy player today thinks that “success_2a” means “material wealth and security”.

And, that reflects how successful operation spider’s web has been.

0683 Why?

This is precisely what the expert level promises for the crappy-level player.

And, it is not true.

Why?

The meaning of “success” is not what it seems to be.

0684 For the one of scientism_3c, “success_2c” is the execution of an empirio-normative judgment_2c, according to a particular opportunity_1c that arises from expert assessments_2b.

Yes, the game is rigged.

0685 Operation spider web is a network of operation sheepskins, sometimes working coherently, sometimes not.  Each person who serves as the one of scientism_3c must work in concert or in competition with other ones of scientism_3c.  But, each person serving as the one of scientism_3c is a relativist one_3c, who is theoretically outside of all jurisdictions, included the jurisdictions of other scientismist ones_3c.

At some point, it seems that the elites may begin fighting one another.

0686 Imagine living as a sheep among sheep, and oddly, the “leader” sheep want the herd to go in different directions, as if they no longer define the same reality, and their relationships are about to… oh, look… they are biting one another, viciously, like wolves.  Oh no!  They are wolves!  Run for your lives!

But wait.  The wolves stopped fighting with one another.  The wolves are starting to cooperate.  Oh, this is worse.

Run for your lives!

0687 Now, replace the word, “bite”, with “speaking to”.

And, replace the word, “cooperate”, with “enter into communion with one another”.

The wolves come into communion with the one idea to rule them all.

0688 Let me look at the comparison between the relation within the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) for the post-truth condition and the relation in the judgment_2c that is on the perspective level of the scholastic interscope for how humans think.

0689 The wisdom of the Axial Age religions, as well as other now ancient traditions, provides intelligence to our perceptions and universality to our sensations.  Ancient wisdom trains us.  It calls us into communion.

The wisdom of the hidden agenda, the normative judgement_2c of the post-truth interscope, pretends to provide intelligibility and universality.  Media narratives are formulated to dominate our intelligibility.  Media reports are packaged to be so sensational as to undermine the commonality of our impressions and feelings.  This is only possible in the arena of pseudo-reality, where the reader does not directly experience the news that is being reported.

0690 Chapter nine is titled, “War of Words”.

Already, throughout my comments concerning the post-truth interscope, different definitions of “success” comes to the fore.  Scrappy players_3a,1a see “success_2a” as “getting ahead_2a“.  The one of scientism_3c sees “success” as “an exercise of the empirio-normative judgment_2c“.  Every execution of the empirio-normative judgment_2c brings an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) to bear upon the scrappy player level (SO_i and SI_i).

Indeed, spoken words are like bombs, raining down on unsuspecting citizens.

Or, should I say, “…reigning down…”?

0691 Consider how the knowledge necessary for getting ahead_2a appears, depending on the role that one considers.

0692 Neither the capitalism of the American alliance nor the communism of the Soviet alliance stand as victors in the Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: The Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies (1945-1989).  The victor is science.  During the Cold War, so-called capitalist America becomes more and more socialist.  By the time the Cold War ends, an administrative state composed of experts in capitalism and in socialism are on their way to characterize the direction, reality, definition and scope of the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: Empirio-normative domination of subject populations.  Experts on finance capitalism_3b and experts on nanny socialism_3b produce increasingly insane valuations_2b, that are then imposed upon the populace through propaganda and coercion.

0693 The war of words is real and dangerous.  Consider the demeaning labels that credentialed experts apply to crappy players who ignore the importance of experts in the post-truth interscope.

0694 Group-defining terminology condoned by the federal government puts the force of law behind words that end up creating the society that the federal government strives to overcome.  

For example, in America, “whites” are not a homogeneous ethnic identity, even though socialist experts model them as such.  “Blacks” have a historical identity that “whites” do not, but “blacks” who benefit from federal promotions (at the expense of so-called “whites”) tend not to have this historical identity.  Rather than descendants of slaves, they are from say, Jamaica.

The scholar, Thomas Sowell, studies the ironies of government “solutions” (empirio-normative judgments_2c) applied to group differences.  Any of Thomas Sowell’s books serves as a insight-filled introduction to the ways that experts situate scrappy players.

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.