01/11/23

Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset” (Part 7 of 12)

0080 In chapter three, Jones asks (more or less), “Who is responsible for this garbage… er… act of persuasion?“

He recounts a history, full of conspiracies.

Ahem, let me say that our elites do not conspire.  Rather, they manage.

Consequently, I rebrand the term, “conspiracy theory”, with the moniker, “a suspected historical managerial collaboration”.

0081 I will not recount this history.  Jones must be appreciated in his own words.

I will say that chapters three and four convey lots of information, pay attention to behind-the-scenes actors, and portray “managers” in ways that confound the traditional use of the term.

0082 How so?

How do managers work?

Well, first, managers are in charge.  The claim to be in charge of what is going on.  They take credit for successes and deflect blame for failures onto underlings, some of whom are not psychologically prepared for the betrayal.  They cook books.  They implement plans.

0083 How do “managers” work in suspected historical managerial collaborations?

Well, first, they attain positions of power with indeterminate responsibilities.  They appoint loyal people to be in charge of what must be done.  They manipulate the appearances of success and failure.  They compromise others and are especially fond of those who are not psychologically prepared to be compromised.  They make plans.  They select obedient managers to implement those plans.

0084 Of course, these “managers” cannot take exception to Alex Jones’s history of their suspected managerial collaborations.  But, they can sue the crap out of him on the basis of implausible legal theories.

Plus, look how beautiful stakeholder capitalism (D) is, compared to the alternative, less than optimal solutions (D).

Figure 15

0085 In chapter five, Jones turns his attention to Yuval Noah Harari, a lecturer at the department of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.  Harari has a great intellect.  Harari is also Klaus Schwab’s sidekick.

Surely, Schwab outsources aspects of the act of persuasion to Harari.

0086 According to Jones, Harari faces two tasks.

First, convince the reader that “his” understanding of the past is flawed.  This may be easy, because the academy has prepared the soil.  Note how I put the pronoun, “him”, in brackets in order to designate both male and female humans.  That means that my psychological conditions are already grounded in their… um… accusation that my understanding is flawed.

Second, move the reader to a desired vision of the future, where the dystopian reactionary Great Reset (C) leads to the solution of a capitalism where progress, people and the planet are stakeholders (D).

Does “stakeholder” sound like “public-private partnership”?

Oh well.  It sounds like shop talk for our elites.

0087 Harari’s two tasks veil two elements in Schwab’s Greimas square (K1-K5).

Here is a picture.

Figure 16

0088 How does Harari add value to Schwab’s agenda?

Harari’s suggestion that my understanding of the past is wrong diminishes the viability of alternate plans for shaping the future.  The World Economic Forum (WEF) is not the only trans-national institution with a vision for the future.  Indeed, the plans of the WEF may be the public face of a coin.  The other face is… well… private.  Yes, only the members of the partnership can view the other side of the coin.

0089 Ah!  There is a partnership, a coin with two faces: one public and one private.

Theorists of historical managerial collaborations take note.

The dichotomy may be applied in more than one way.

0090 Harari’s efforts to move me to the desired vision of the future (C) speaks against his suggestion that my understanding of the past is wrong (B) and complements the public face of the fourth industrial revolution (including the covid-19 operation, A).  I suppose that the private face is stakeholder capitalism (D).

What?

I thought that covid-19 was a “pandemic”.

Also, I thought that the injection that I was forced to take in order to keep my job was a “vaccine”.

This is the public face of the events leading to the Great Reset (C).

The private face calls it a proprietary mRNA technology.

With the assistance of Alex Jones, I may now suspect that covid-19 was a public “Event 201-related operation” coordinated with private stakeholders.  See page 72 in the text.

0091 The coin of the new realm is “partnership”.  The two faces of the coin are public and private.

Figure 17

0092 Let me repeat the same trick that I applied to the titles of Schwab’s books, K1 through K5, in points 21 through 27.

Here are the titles of Harari’s books.

H1: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humanity (2011)

H2: Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (2016)

H3: 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (2018)

0093 The associations are obvious.

Figure 18

0094 Behold, another version of Klaus Schwab’s act of persuasion.

01/10/23

Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset” (Part 8 of 12)

0095 Jones discusses the illusion-filled reactionary Great Reset (C) in chapters six, seven and eight.

These chapters cover how the coin of the new realm is forged and hammered out.

0096 In chapter nine, the apparently salutary solution of stakeholder capitalism (D) emerges, like order from chaos, like coagula from solve, and like a mandate from heaven.

Jones closes with a review of K5, the fifth book under consideration. Here is the delusion (D) that Klaus Schwab wants to alchemically precipitate from the implemented illusions (C) of the Great Reset.

0097 At this juncture, I turn back and regard the path that I have taken in looking at Jones’s provocative book.

Jones is on target.  He identifies the literary output of Schwab as an act of persuasion.

When I look at this act of persuasion, the Greimas square comes to mind.

0098 Here is the purely-relational structure of the Greimas square.

Figure 19

0099 What does an act of persuasion do?

Well, first of all, one must distinguish the topic from the act of persuasion.

The topic opens with a mind-independent being (A).

The first step (B) of the act of persuasion reminds me of medieval scholastic debates struggling to separate mind-independent being from mind-dependent being (perhaps, I can say, knowledge from opinion).

Needless to say, this scholastic debate does not appear to bear fruit. 

But today, I can see that the medieval debate touches on two elements that are drawn into reality through acts of persuasion (C and D).

0100 What are the two elements?

In an illusion (C), a mind-independent being (ens reale) is regarded as mind-dependent (ens rationis).

In a delusion (D), a mind-dependent being (ens rationis) is regarded as mind-independent (ens reale).

Consequently, the Greimas square updates a centuries-old scholastic debate.

Figure 20

0101 To me, the updated scholastic Greimas square introduces precisely what the medieval schoolmen were trying to avoid: illusion and delusion.

What does an act of persuasion do?

Schwab writes books on the topic of the fourth industrial revolution (A).

In the process, Schwab persuades us of the realness of stakeholder capitalism (D).

01/9/23

Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset” (Part 9 of 12)

0102 Here is where I left off in the last blog.

Figure 21

0103 Another author with the name of Jones, describes the act of persuasion as applying a category of the mind.

To start, there is the mind-independent reality of a situation (A).

For Schwab, this mind-independent reality includes thousands of people working independently, as well as collaboratively, in cutting edge technologies, including artificial intelligence, robotics, material science, genetic research, biochemistry, biology and so on.  All these technologies will contribute to shaping the future in ways that those who seek control cannot control.  Those who seek control envision chaos.

0104 So, B, a mind-dependent being, is formulated.  As per the rules of the Greimas square, B contrasts with A and sets the stage for a creative leap to an apparently mind-dependent being, C.

For Schwab, this mind-dependent being (B) is a plan for shaping the future, courtesy of the World Economic Forum, composed (according to Jones) by those who seek control (or their representatives and lackeys, who are compromised and therefore easily… um… directed.)

0105 The mind-dependent being (B) represents the mind, in the term, category of the mind.

How so?

Well, the mind (B) engages what itB thinks belongs to the outside world (A), that is, mind-independent being, as if itA (A) is a mind-dependent being (C).

For example, if I find a slab of marble (A), and I figure that I can carve a statue of ‘something’ (B), I begin chiseling (C) this mind-independent being (A) according to my vision (B).  This artisanal example is not only a creative act, but it exhibits the purely relational character of an act of persuasion.

0106 As the slab of marble is fashioned (C) it speaks against the ‘something’ that I figure I can carve (B).  Plus, itCcomplements the integrity of the originating thing (A).

For Schwab, the fashioning of the fourth industrial revolution (including the covid-19 business) (B) is precisely an artistic effort (C), similar to a sculptor working on stone.  However, as Jones rightly notes, the metaphorical slab of stone is composed of humans, who can be as dumb as bricks, but nevertheless bear the image of their Creator.

Who is the creator here, God or the sculptor of the Great Reset?

Illusions (C) can be confounding.  To the mind, a mind-independent being takes on the character of mind-dependence.

0107  Next comes a delusion (D), a mind-dependent being that is categorized as mind-independent.

Ah, is D the category-aspect of the term, “category of the mind”?

Yes, the other Jones is onto ‘something’.

If D goes with “category” and B associates to “of the mind”, then the other Jones’s term, “category of the mind”, labels how D complements B, contrasts with C, and speaks against A.

0108 A delusion (D), appearing to be mind-independent, applies a category of the mind onto the originally mind-independent topic (A).

For the first example of an act of persuasion discussed in these blogs, the apparently mind-independent being is the second amendment of the Constitution (D).  This category of the mind is superimposed, by corporate media, upon heinous crimes (A).

0109 The delusion (D) expresses a mind-independent being that speaks against the originating mind-independent being(A).

Thus, the delusion (D) imposes a category of the mind onto the originating focus (A).  It is as if the second amendment(an apparently mind-independent being) opens the door to heinous crimes (as mind-independent beings) and is therefore complicit.  If this statement makes sense, then pause and savor the delusion (D) as an act of persuasion, leading to the imposition of a category of the mind upon mind-independent being.

Figure 22

0110 Both D and B precipitate, or “co-create”, the category of the mind.

The delusion (D) complements the mind-dependent being (B) and, often enough, serves as a mental impression of the originating mind-independent being (A).  B is the mind in a category of the mind.  D is the category.

Who is the other Jones?

Think E. Michael.

0111 For Schwab, the delusion (D) comes with the label, “stakeholder capitalism”.  Stakeholder capitalism is like a statue, a mind-independent being, chiseled out of social upheaval during the fourth industrial revolution.  There are three stakeholders: progress, people and planet.  All three are reified into mind-independent beings that somehow put capital, the undead blood flowing through the living arteries and veins of the global economy, into perspective.

Once the work of the Great Reset (C) is complete, stakeholder capitalism (D) will have replaced the second amendment (D) as the mind-independent being (D) imposed on all sorts of encounters with reality (A).

Schwab’s act of persuasion will become fiat accompli.

0112 Here is a diagram of the Greimas square derived from the titles of Klaus Schwab’s five books.

Figure 23
01/6/23

Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset” (Part 10 of 12)

0113 From the very start, the intrepid Alex Jones intuitively anticipates the purely relational structure that defines Klaus Schwab’s act of persuasion.  After bringing these associations to consciousness, I want to futz.

Here is how I associate Jones’s summary of Schwab’s approach to the Greimas square.

Figure 24

0114 To me, Jones’s selection of terms reproduces what Schwab sees in his mirror.  Schwab’s mirror tells Klaus what is happening, just as it would tell any sorcerer.  As Jones dismantles Schwab’s argument, Klaus’s mirror remains unsullied.

Figure 25

0115 So, here is where I want to futz (that is, to suggest a small adjustment).

Typically, people futz because they think that they are smarter than they actually are.

Perhaps, my futz reflects the same underlying condition.

Here are alternate terms to “problem, reaction and solution”.  They express the same character, but with a different flavor.

Figure 26

0116 Surely, this Greimas square portrays the persuasive act in Schwab’s five books.

Figure 27

Plus, this Greimas square reflects in Schwab’s mirror.

Figure 28

0117 What does that imply?

A robust argument needs to be made that Schwab’s act of persuasion is not the only response to the vision in Klaus’s mirror.

Perhaps, God has a different plan.

01/5/23

Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset” (Part 11 of 12)

0118 This examination adds value to Jones’s eye-opening book, without replacing the work itself.  The book is a great read.  Plus, it rests on the surface of an alternative to what the sorcerer sees in the mirror.  Below that surface, a Great Awakening flows.

A Great Awakening (C)?

What (A) is happening?

God has a plan (B)?

Is revelation (C) the antidote to illusion (C)?

Does faith seeking understanding (D) challenge delusion (D)?

Figure 29

0119 Is the unfolding of our current theodrama an act of persuasion?

What an odd question.

Have we seen this theodrama before?

0120 Exactly how ancient is the Greimas square’s update of a medieval scholastic debate?

Is it as old as the stories of Adam and Eve?

0121 How could it be?

Here is another way to picture the updated scholastic Greimas square.

Figure 30

0122 Now, I associate elements in the Biblical story of the Fall to this relational structure.

A is the tree at the center of the garden.  This tree is a mind-independent being.

In the October 2022 blog, Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin?”, this examiner suggests that the tree of life in the garden of Eden is already a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent.  If so, then the Greimas square already operates before Eve takes interest in the singular tree.  Remember, D can replace A.  Remember that John Milton’s masterpiece, Paradise Lost, begins with Lucifer’s rebellion.

B is the spoken name that God gives to the tree.  The tree of the knowledge of good and evil comes with a command, “Do not eat, lest you die.”

In C, Eve reacts to the name.  The serpent assists Eve in regarding the mind-independent being in the center of the garden(A) as a mind-dependent being (C).  The fruit appeals to the eyes, may be good to the taste, and is desired to make one wise.  The serpent pushes the envelope of an illusion (C).

D follows.  Eve is deluded into turning the illusion (C) into a mind-independent being (D).  When she eats the fruit, she violates the command accompanying the naming of the tree.  The mind-initiated violation is a mind-independent being.  All humanity is plunged into a primal state of delusion, where we habitually and blindly project categories of the mindonto mind-independent reality.  We frame.  We name.  We entertain illusion.  We create delusions.  Then, we regard our delusions (D) as mind-independent beings (A).

0123 Here is a picture of the fall of Eve.

Figure 31
01/4/23

Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset” (Part 12 of 12)

0124 Does the bombastic, entertaining, yet earnest Alex Jones speak fiction to fact?  Or fact to fiction?  Or both?  Or neither?

0125 This look at his most recent book suggests that the terms, “fact” and “fiction”, are inadequate.  Terms that are much older, yet still explicit abstractions, are preferable.

To me, the Latin terms, “ens reale” (mind-independent being) and “ens rationis” (mind dependent being), apply.

0126 I will not be the first to falsely accuse Alex Jones of being what he is not, when I say that Jones works in the vineyards of scholastic thought.  He intuitively senses and exposes illusion and delusion.  Plus, he strives to identify a nomenclature to describe how Klaus Schwab casts his sorcerer’s spell in an act of persuasion, just like that serpent in the third chapter of Genesis.

The scholastic world of the high middle ages (roughly 1100 to 1600 AD) rocks with controversies concerning how to distinguish (and perhaps, separate) ens reale and ens rationis.  The schoolmen struggle against manipulative influences that bring these two types together, alchemically mixing them, in order to precipitate novel (mind-dependent) mind-independent beings (D).  D can become the next A.  Such is the nature of original sin.

0127 The Greimas square is an act of persuasion that does not fit what anyone currently imagines is an act of persuasion.  Yet, Alex Jones smells it.  He sniffs out a rhetorical pattern that seems credible, yet defies practical reason.  This is his charism.

0128 A little philosophy goes a long way.

Indeed, this look at The Great Reset may seem to be a revelation.

Not unlike Jones’s book.

12/30/22

Looking at Razie Mah’s (2014) A Course on How To Define the Word “Religion” (Part 1 of 24)

0001 Many home and private schoolers face a difficulty.

They want to teach their children and students about God and nature.

At the same time, they want their children and students to pass standardized tests constructed by government agencies that declare themselves to be “not religious”.

Can a “not religious” sovereign establish a religion?

I like to call this apparent anomaly, “Big Government (il)Liberalism”.

Other names also apply.

0002 Indeed, parents and teachers suspect that the standards… or perhaps, the norms… of these godless educational… er, indoctrinating agencies do not allow a type of thinking that has been common to Christian civilization since its inception.  This type of thinking is both analytic and synthetic and is promulgated by the schoolmen (or “scholastics”) of the so-called “Middle Ages”.

As it turns out, scholastic debates concerning mind-independent and mind-dependent reality end up with a definition of sign-relation that incorporates modern science, while at the same time transcending it.

Of course, the mechanical philosophers of the 1600s don’t know this.  Modern scientists try to model observations and measurements of phenomena, using their highly specialized disciplinary languages.  These models break down into two elements: cause and effect.

But, material and physical cause and effect cannot describe the causality inherent in sign relations.

0003 Surely, there are three elements to all existence.

Charles Peirce (1839-1914 AD) reads Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), a Baroque Scholastic, and comes up with the idea that there are three categories.  Firstness has one element.  Secondness (which includes mechanical science) has two elements.  Thirdness has three.  These three categories describe the causality inherent in a sign relation.

These three categories are also the foundation for the category-based nested form.

0004 So, what does this mean to parents and teachers?

None of the government agencies, who declare themselves to be “scientific”, can define the sign as a triadic relation.

So, perhaps that is a good place to start.

0005 Semiotics encompasses the natural sciences, not the other way around.

Teaching your students the analytic and synthetic practices of the category-based nested form and semiotics will prepare them for technology, engineering and mathematics. Science typifies secondness.  And, secondness stands between thirdness and firstness.

Say what?

Take a look at the following figure.  Even without familiarity with Peirce’s categories, the diagram tells a story concerning the relevance of triadic relations1 in regards to inquiry3 and science2.  Understanding is not the same as scientific determination.

Figure 01

0006 What about the social sciences?

I wonder, can modern social scientists observe and measure social phenomena?

Can they model observations of religious behavior, when they describe themselves as “not religious”?

If everyone can be religious and if social scientists choose not to be religious in order to build models of their observations of those who are, then isn’t there some sort of contradiction?

Or, is that the nature of specialization?

Speaking of specialization, sociologists do not study psychology.  Psychologists do not study sociology.  Plus, sociology and psychology ignore biology.  All these disciplines are alchemically sealed within their own academic echo-chambers.  They cannot hear one another.

Say what?

0007 The category-based nested form is a triadic relation, that is both synthetic and analytic.  It is useful for reading texts.  It is a powerful tool for picturing the purely relational characteristics of psychology, sociology, cognition and evolution.

A Course on How to Define the Word “Religion” offers a unique path into topics covered by the so-called “social sciences”, without the blinders of BG(il)L.

Please consider this course when developing a curriculum for your children and your students.

12/29/22

Looking at Razie Mah’s (2014) Course on How To Define the Word “Religion” (Part 2 of 24)

0008 A Course on How To Define The Word “Religion” may be found at smashwords and other e-book vendors.  Use the search terms: Razie Mah, series, course, how to define the word “religion”.

The course consists of ten primers, followed by the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”.

The primers and the masterwork are punctuated, not by page numbers, but by points.  A one-hour class may cover around forty points.  That is a little slower than one per minute.  If you conduct a class, record the number of points covered per session and report to raziemah@reagan.com.

0009 The first five primers are listed below.

Figure 02

0010 These five primers introduce the category-based nested form, the two-level and three-level interscope, and topics covered by psychology and economics.

0011 The second five primers are listed below.

Figure 03

0012 These five primers introduce tiers, institutions, politics and religion.

The range of applications for the category-based nested form is remarkable.

0013 These ten primers open the door to the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”.

This masterwork is one of three, covering the entire human evolutionary record.

0014 The method of instruction is to read and discuss.  Some points will pass rapidly.  Other points will evoke discussion.  Don’t worry about timelines.  The love of wisdom walks at her own tempo.

0015 The following blogs dwell on each of the ten primers.

12/28/22

Looking at Razie Mah’s (2014) A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form (Part 3 of 24)

0015 The category-based nested form comes first.

Some educators say that evolution should be a key concept in teaching sociology, psychology, and other social sciences.

Yet, the modern social sciences simply take the biological sciences for granted, then mimic the empirio-schematics of the natural sciences.  Disciplinary languages bring mathematical and mechanical models into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena.

The modern social sciences ignore human evolution and the mysterious character of the biological sciences.

The modern social sciences embrace empirio-schematics.

0016 Razie Mah proposes that human evolution has three aspects.  He writes three masterworks, one for each aspect, as depicted in the following figure.

Figure 04

0017 The third work, How To Define the Word “Religion” covers the character of our current Lebenswelt.   Speech-alone talk is one of the defining features of our current Lebenswelt.  The spoken word may be pictured as a category-based nested form.

Here is a diagram.

Figure 05

0018 How To Define the Word “Religion” relies on the truly postmodern philosophy of Charles S. Peirce.  The word, “postmodern”, is a site of contention, because many modern intellectuals label themselves with the term. What a fashionable attribute.  No one wants to be called, “modern”.  “Postmodern” is in vogue.

Yet, these self-identified “postmoderns” cannot identify Peirce’s three categories, nor how they fit together.  The category of firstness is the realm of possibility.  The category of secondness is the realm of actuality.  The category of thirdness is the realm of signs, mediations, judgments and normal contexts.

Instead, postmodern academics propose only two categories: their good and political fellow travelers and their evil and despised detractors.

Just kidding.

0019 Peirce’s categories permit the construction of the category-based nested form.

Here is a picture.

Figure 06

0020 Ten primers prepare the student for How To Define the Word “Religion”.  

The first is A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

0021 The student?

This course is suitable for freshmen of all stripes, whether in middle school, high school or college.

0022 How so?

Freshmen enter introductory courses.

Freshmen need intellectual tools.

The intellectual tools introduced in these primers are relevant to understanding all three aspects of human evolution: the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the first singularity and our current Lebenswelt.

12/27/22

Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2014) A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form (Part 4 of 24)

0023 Peirce’s categories label the number of elements.  Thirdness has three elements.  Secondness has two.  Firstness has one.

0024 The three elements of thirdness are relation, actuality and potential.  Each category is represented in thirdness.  Thirdness exhibits the logics of exclusion, alignment and complement.

0025 The two elements of secondness are contiguous.  One real element is contiguous with another real element.  For nomenclature, I place the contiguity in brackets: one real element [contiguity] other real element.  The contiguity has the character of substance, causality, embodiment, information and so forth.  Secondness exhibits the logics of contradiction and noncontradiction.

0026 The one element of firstness can be really goofy.  Imagine two frames.  In one frame, the canvas is covered with the color gray.  The other frame holds a painting of a park in Paris in the middle of summer.  Both images belong to firstness.

Here is another way to imagine firstness.  Picture a coin.  One item has two faces.  One can only observe one face at a time.  Firstness exhibits logics that are inclusive and allow contradictions.

0027 Here is a picture of the nested form.  The categories serve as subscripts.

Figure 07

0028 So, what do the covers for the primers, as well as the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, portray?

Here is the pattern.

Figure 08

0029 Now, back to education.

I appeal to homeschoolers and private schools.

0030 How does one teach the ten primers as well as the masterwork?

The method is easy.  Read and discuss.  The text is marked with points.  Step by step, both instructor and student can walk together and examine each point.  Both will learn along the way.

Timing?

Each point takes one to three minutes.

An assessment of class time may be found in day 23 of this blog.

0031 The advantage?

Right now, so-called “public” schools teach the scientific facts of human evolution, according to a Darwinian picture of descent with modification.  But, imagine that the facts constitute an actuality2 that will enter into a category-based nested form.

The following nested form results.

Figure 09

Indoctrination asks the student to recite the facts of human evolution2.

Education asks the student to consider the normal context3 and assess the potential1 underlying the facts2.

Facts are not the same as understanding.