02/11/23

Looking at Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s Music Video (2022) “Unholy” (Part 1 of 1)

0001 The Grammy Awards Ceremony is broadcast February 5, 2023.  Sam Smith and Kim Petras win the grammy in the category of Best Pop Duo or Group Performance for their song, “Unholy”.  Their grammy performance quickly goes viral, with many Christian podcasters dubbing the performance… say nothing of the ceremony… “Satanic”.

To wit, I now examine the official video for this song (not the Grammy performance) for the unholy message that the song sends.  My conclusion is that the moniker, “Satanic”, may apply.  But, so does the word, “political”.  This music video spins an artistic message, at once cryptic and revealing.  I strive to delineate this message, using the methodology of the category-based nested form.

0002 This music video is an actuality.

According to A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form (available at smashwords and other e-work venues), in order to understand (or appreciate) an actuality2, one must figure out its normal context3 and potential1.  So, this is what I intend to do.  My determination of normal contexts3 and potentials1 is purely speculative.  Do not take them as judgment or doctrine.

I start with a guess.   The normal context3 is politics.  The potential1 is for ‘something Satanic to be exposed’.  Thus, the normal context of politics3 brings the pop-music video, “unholy”2, into relation with the possibilities inherent in ‘an exposure of something Satanic’1.  Maybe, Satan shows his plans for the future.  Who knows?

Here is a picture.

Figure 01

0003 Politics?

The song is released on September 22, 2022, six weeks before the November midterm elections in the USA.  The November 8, 2022, elections occur at the time of a lunar eclipse.

0004 So, I suspect that politics3 includes astrology3.

Several astrological squares and oppositions are in play on September 22, 2022.  Here is a picture of some of them.

Figure 02

0005 The Saturn-Uranus square is at the top of the list, since it dominates the last half of 2021 and almost all of 2022, including the span from September through November.  In the following figure, a zodiac sign is the normal context3, a planet is the actuality2, and the potential pertains to the astrological characteristics of such an arragement1. When two planets are at right angles to one another, it is almost as if they work at cross purposes.

Here is a picture.

Figure 03

0006 So, the release date offers clues to the potential of ‘stellar arrangements’1.  Whatever Satan is preparing, it is simultaneously a cold calculation and a steaming pile of manure.

0007 Speaking of cold calculations, the video begins.

A woman in white gets out of a car.  Is she the daemon of the American Democratic Party?  What is a white woman?  A woman who has abandoned Jesus and found… shall I say?… someone willing to put a warm coat of manufactured virtueupon her?  She is obviously highly educated.  She is well manicured.  As he goes to park the car, she enters the foyer.  She reaches into her pocket and lifts out a playbill (an official narrative) and a condom from the Body Shop (protection, of sorts).

0008 Here is a diagram of the first of five movements in the video itself.

Figure 04

0009 Well, isn’t that the way the music video starts?

Biden is a good looking man.  He drives the car and parks it at the Body Shop.  He has been there before.  He knows the price of things.  The lyrics mention daddy.  Daddy Biden.  Shall I call him Biden Joe?  Biden goes up the stairs and passes the whores of various nations.  Can I make out China, Iran and Ukraine?  Miss Ukraine devours the blossoming youth of her nation.

Biden Joe is tempted.  And, he knows how to play the game.

Figure 05

0010 Someone pulls on Biden Joe’s tie.  Then, a vision captures his gaze.  Biden is in a booth, overlooking a theater.  He engages two active parties (Ukraine and China?), in pay for play.  Biden sees Biden.  Joe observes Hunter.  Both are the same person.

Say what?

0011 Suddenly, Sam Smith, perched in a balcony seat in the theater of the Body Shop, captures the viewer’s gaze then hurtles it towards the blue center-stage, where Kim Petras descends upon a swing in the shape of a heart.  Her madonna-like visage lands on the top of an automobile.  American, no doubt.  Biden Hunter is in the back seat, in full erotic rutting.  He has what it takes to satisfy the material girl.  He is in deep doo-doo (English, for “fumier”).

Figure 06

0012 In the fourth movement, Biden is spent and on display, mimicking the Hangman of the Tarot Cards.  The Hangman card is often interpreted as the potential of an unusual revelation.  Here, the revelation is compromising.  Biden is exposed (on top of the car, for all to see) as who he is (a load of manure, for all to smell).

Figure 07

0013 The drama is not over.

The spent handsome man, simultaneously the daddy and the man-child, lays on stage as completely revealed to an American public as a liar and a cheat.  It is written on the car.  The entire dance troupe awaits the next moment.  The audience in the theater (perhaps, the mavens of corporate media) applaud.  What a performance!

Then, the white woman walks up the aisle towards the stage.  Who knows how she got there?  But, she is there to render a judgment.  She steps on stage and observes the prone corpse of her man, in a pure Saturn-square-Uranus pose of cold calculation looking upon someone who could not keep his business clean.

She turns and faces the audience.

She has a choice.

0014 Here, we see the crux.  Here, we see the materialization of ‘something’ that Satan wishes to be revealed.  It is all about choice.

Does the white woman, a key demographic that remains wedded to the Democratic Party, repudiate the man that she was led to believe in, and embrace the perverse machinations of the Body Shop, the apparatus for the temptation of the father and for the corruption of the son?

Or, does she repent?

0015 Here is the message.

Figure 08

0016 The curtain falls.  But, there is one small issue.  A foot of the corpse remains on display, indicating that what has been exposed is not for certain.  Not even Satan knows the future for certain.  Sam Smith and Kim Petras are big fans of the projected outcome.  But, the story has only begun.

0017 Now, I recapitulate.

First, I place the work of art under examination into the slot for actuality in a category-based nested form.

Figure 09

0018 I make an initial guess.  My guess is informed by Christian podcasters commenting on the Grammy ceremony.

Then , I proceed to imagine the normal context3 and potential1 of various aspects2 (here, movements2 within the drama).  Do these cohere with my initial guess?  Some will say, “Yes.”  Others will say, “No”.

0019 Here is the breakout for the realm of actuality2.

Figure 10

0020 Do these cohere with the realness of the music video?

Yes, these are the actualities2 that I endeavor to put into normal contexts3 and potentials1.

0021 What does this imply?

The astrology of the time of release frames the movements in term of a square between Saturn in Aquarius and Uranus in Taurus.  The artist pours out a beautiful and captivating music video with two figures represented as one.  Yes, that one handsome man, like a bull, is simultaneously Daedalus, who fashions the wings of escape, and Icarus, who uses the wings, fashioned by his father, to fly too close to the Sun.  To me, this associates to the contemporary story of Joe and Hunter Biden.  Oh, did I mention that Jupiter in Aries is in opposition with the Sun in Libra?

And what of the woman in white?

Does the white woman represent one of the most faithful demographics wed to the Democratic party?

She opens and closes the music video.

0022 Here is the breakout for the realm of normal context3.

Figure 11

0023 What does that imply?

The normal context3 of astrology addresses a post-Christian world.  In this pagan world, certain bonds, certain promises, and certain rituals are presumed to be substantial.  But they are not.  The woman in white lives in a world of pretensions.  The playbill recounts an official narrative.  And, the condom?  That is official, too.

The Body Shop manifests the will to power in the furnishings of materialism.  The philosophy of the will to power asks one to pay for entrance into the Body Shop.  Daddy is hot.  Daddy cannot hide his business.  But, he retains restraint.  Not so, his son, who is the same as the father.  The symbolism of the double is striking.  Temptation for the father translates into lust with the son.  The father and the son are both out of control.  Both are to be exposed and ruined.

Where?

On the stage of the Body Shop.

0024 Where does that leave the white woman?

She faces a choice.

And, that choice reveals ‘something’ Satanic.

Satan dreams that her choice comes to pass.

0025 Here is the breakout for the realm of potential1.

Figure 12

0026 The story of the stars offers a narrative of fate.

In our world of pretensions, playbills offer narratives and condoms offer protection.

From fate?

0027 The Body Shop seals the fate of the one man, who is really two.  Daddy wants something to keep himself warm.  The son wants someone to cool himself off.   But, the selves are no different.  They both subscribe to the Body Shop.  For them, the choice is already made.  Their destiny is certain.

0028 But, is the same fate necessary for the woman?

I don’t think so.

If anything, this advertisement for the Body Shop aims to foreclose any option that prevents the destiny that Satan plans for her.

She has a choice.

Unholy or holy?

Will she signal her manufactured virtue by repudiating her own ruined man, while simultaneously bonding with the unholy Body Shop?

Or, will she mourn the loss of her pretensions, and appeal to the love of God?

0029 I reiterate.  These associations and implications are purely speculative.  They are to be taken as an act of appreciation, rather than a judgment or a doctrine.  My thanks to Sam Smith, Kim Petras, along with their collaborators, for producing this engaging music video.  Here is a work of art worth examining.

With that said, I recount my initial guess.

Figure 13

0030 For those interested in trying their own hand at this diagrammatic method of art appreciation, please consult A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

Here are some other music videos worth trying the method on.

“I Wanna Get Better” by the Bleachers

“Doom days” by Bastille

“Welcome to the Black Parade” by My Chemical Romance

“This is Gospel” by Panic at the Disco, plus its sequel

“Hi Ren” by Ren

0031 If the reader wants to suggest other music videos worthy of examination using this method, please e-mail Razie Mah at the address that appears in the Primers.

02/10/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…On Strauss and Dugin” (Part 4 of 10)

0070 Task one seeks to dismantle archeomodernity.

What is archeomodernity?

Why does Dugin want to dismantle it?

0071 Well, given Dugin’s concrete directions, ably translated by Millerman, archeomodernity seems to be a cognitive space that is trapping contemporary Russians.  Liberation from archeomodernity opens the possibility of Russian philosophy.

0072 So, archeomodernity must be a trap.

How can I explain the purely relational nature of this trap?

I have found an example of such a trap in my intellectual wanderings through the vast goofiness of the internet.  I will not say where.  But, I will say that if you, the intrepid truly postmodern intellectual, post or publish a paper using the category-based nested form (or other triadic relations), please e-mail a notification to raziemah@reagan.com.

Perhaps, a new journal is called for.

0073 The story of the trap goes like this:

At the start of the middle ages in the West, Anselm coins a slogan that is repeated to this day.  Faith seeks understanding.

At the start of the modern era, Descartes coins another slogan.  I think, therefore, I am.

I associate Anselm’s premodern slogan to “archeo-“.

I associate Descartes’ slogan to “-modernity”.

0074 So, how does archeomodernity constitute a trap?

How can I portray this trap?

First, I render each slogan as a nested form.

0075 For archeo- Anselm, the normal context is faith3.  The actuality is seeks2.  The potential is understanding1.

Here is a picture.

Figure 01

0076 For -modern Descartes, the normal context is I think3.  The actuality is therefore2.  The potential is I am1.

Here is a picture.

Figure 02

0077 Now I ask, “Does Descartes’ slogan situate Anselm’s slogan or visa versa?”

The answer is no.

Do these two nested forms constitute a single, mysterious intersection, as described in the chapter on message in Razie Mah’s e-book, How To Define the Word “Religion” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues)?

The answer is no.

0078 Are there any other options?

Here, Dugin’s impression that archeomodernity is a trap comes into play. Biological (especially, cellular) systems are full of traps.  They are called “receptors”.  Receptors typically consist in proteins that are folded in such a fashion that a substrate is attracted and held in place.

So, I picture the archeo- side of a matrix and the -modern side of a matrix as forming a groove.

Figure 03

0079 What goes into the groove?

Nested forms, of course.Nested forms may be attracted to the normal context3 and the potential1 elements on each side of the groove.  The stronger the attraction to both sides, the stronger the binding and the better the fit.  Archeomodernity traps ideas that fit its groove.

02/9/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…On Strauss and Dugin” (Part 5 of 10)

0080 How about an example?

Consider a claim by Spengler, mentioned earlier.  According to Strauss, Spengler states that the task of philosophy is to understand various cultures as expressions of the soul.

0081 Does this go into a nested form?

The actuality is various cultures2.  The normal context is expressions of the soul3.  The potential is understanding1.

Here is Spengler’s suggestion.  It fits well into the archeomodern groove.

Figure 04

0082 Now, let me try a variant.  Historicism explains expressions of the soul (including philosophy) in terms of the cultural dynamics of the time.

The normal context is explains3.  The actuality is expressions of the soul2.  The potential comes from cultural dynamcs1

Figure 05

0083 Does this bind very well?

I don’t think so.

Spengler’s idea binds well to archeomodernity.

Historicism does not.

0084 Archeomodernity is a trap, in the same way that a receptor is a trap for its substrate.  Spengler’s claim is a suitable substrate.  Historicism is not, unless the substrate alters the binding site through irreversible degradation.

What do I mean by that?

0085 Compare the way that each nested form binds in the realm of thirdness.

Figure 06

Surely, Spencer’s claim intuitively binds to both sides of the groove, while historicism does not.  Expressions of the soul3appeal to faith3 as well as to human thought3.  Determining an explanation3 does not.  Faith3 does not want empirio-schematic “explanations”3.  Plus, scientific explanations terminate inquiry3, and therefore, human thought3.

0086 What do modern experts desire?

They desire to terminate inquiry with scientific models (explanations) that account for observations and measurements of phenomena.

0087 What about a comparison in the realm of firstness?

Take a look

Figure 07

0037 Understanding1 from Spengler’s claim, does not match understanding1 from Anselm’s slogan.  However, since Spengler’s understanding1 is philosophical, rather than scientific, its potential coheres with Anselm’s use of the term.  

At the same time, understanding1 from Spengler’s claim may not satisfy Descartes’ desire for individual realness1.  But, it1does not terminate the presence, inherent to I am1.  

0088 In contrast, the naming of cultural dynamics1 makes understanding1 irrelevant.  Cultural dynamics is a term belonging to a specialized disciplinary language.  The term gives the impression that viable mathematical and mechanical models account for observations and measurements of cultural phenomena.

Of course, mathematical and mechanical models focus on actuality2 and ignore normal context3 and potential1.  Anselm’s understanding1 requires all three categories.  So, cultural dynamics1 is not compatible with Anselm’s understanding1.

Even worse, the impression that models of cultural dynamics1 increases understanding1 (in Anslem’s sense of the term) degrades the archeo- side of the groove.

0089 Similarly, if the term, “cultural dynamics”, belongs to a specialized disciplinary language, not known to average blokes, then the potential of I am1 extols the expert, in contrast to the plebian.  Theoretically, the expert is Cartesian, with an unlimited will (I am1to know (I think3)   In short, expertise3 emerges from the potential of the expert’s will1.

But, since normal contexts follow the logic of exclusion, most modern experts are satisfied to be the only person in the room with a model that no one else can argue with.  So, it makes me wonder whether the potential of cultural dynamics1serves to disengage the purity of will implied by Descartes’ slogan, thereby degrading the -modern side of the groove.  Experts do not have an unlimited will to know, because… well… they are satisfied with what they know.

0090 The Western version of archeomodernity is a receptor.  That is why moderns (and especially, so-called “postmoderns”) despise it.  Indeed, the social sciences tend to degrade it.  Social science explanations do not bind well to the groove.  Consequently, the social sciences are inexplicably dissatisfying.

02/8/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…On Strauss and Dugin” (Part 6 of 10)

0091 If archeomodernity serves as a receptor for a productive matrix in the West, then why does Dugin want to get rid of it as his first task.

Remember that his task is to envision the possibility of a Russian philosophy.

So, Russia is not the same as western Europe.

0092 Consequently, the archeomodern groove must be different.  In the west, Anselm’s slogan pairs with Descartes’ slogan to form the sides of a receptor.  In Russian, a slogan from the premodern past pairs with, perhaps, a Marxist slogan, to form two sides of a trap.

In western Europe, the archeomodern groove tends to bind to nested forms that are not purely empirio-schematic judgments, which pisses off the scientific experts to no end (and explains the persistence of phenomenology and similar research programs).

In Russia, the archeomodern groove may bind to bad ideas, giving them an authority that they would otherwise not enjoy.

0093 Well, what would this Russian archeomodern groove look like?

Since I am not Russian, I cannot say.  But, I can make suggestions based on what little I know about Russia, with the expectation that Russian philosophers will surpass my suggestions without looking back.

Here goes a fool’s attempt at the Russian archeomodern groove.

0094 Slogans are wonderful sources for nested forms.  They are pithy.  They readily separate out into normal context, actuality and potential.  

0095 So, what about the archeo- side of the groove?

In the west, there is a slogan that calls to mind the world of Saint Basil and the Love of Sophia.  It is an appeal to an archangel, Saint Michael, who fights Lucifer and casts him out of God’s realm.  Yes, this is the stuff of Paradise Lost

The slogan says, “Saint Michael, the archangel, defend us!”

The normal context is angels3.  The potential is being defended (or defense)1.  The actuality is us2 (in an unnerving situation). 

Here is a picture.

Figure 08

0096 What about the -modern side of the groove?

To me, one of the Marx’s most famous phrases is “the specter of communism”.  The specter of communism haunts the mercantile society of Marx’s time.  So, I will add a few words to turn the phrase into a slogan.  The specter of communism haunts us.

Here is the corresponding nested form.

Figure 09

0097 Now, I combine these two nested forms into the structure of an archeomodern groove.

Figure 10

0098 What nested form fits into this groove?

The example that I choose belongs to the famous Stalin-era scientist, Lysenko.  According to western sources, Lysenko ruined Soviet biology by promoting Lamarkianism, the idea that acquired traits may be inherited.

In particular, in agriculture, Lysenko wanted to plant wheat seed that had been frozen, because exposure to cold for the seed should produce the acquired trait for the plant.  Of course, this does not work, since frozen grain will not germinate.  Nevertheless, Lysenko did not fail for lack of trying.

0099 This example turns into a nested form through the following associations.  The normal context is survival3, in the evolutionary sense of the term.  The actuality is frozen wheat2.  The potential is the acquired trait of cold resistance1.

Figure 11

0100 Now, I place Lysenko story’s nested form into the groove and ask, “Can I envision how the nested form might fit (or bind to) each side of the groove?”

Figure 12

For the archeo- side, surely survival3 and angels3 attract one another. Otherwise, why would we ask Saint Michael to defend us?

For the -modern side, survival3 coheres with the soul of wheat seeds3.  All wheat seeds should have the capacity to perpetuate acquired traits (even though, really, they do not).  Once the seed is frozen, it is dead, and its soul becomes a specter.  Perhaps, I can say, the seed becomes the specter of Lamarkianism.

Similarly, the acquired trait of cold tolerance1 should haunt1 the plant that grows from a frozen seed2.  Plus, the anticipated acquired trait1 serves as a defense against cold weather1.

0101 Ah, Lysenko’s intuition binds well to the archeomodern groove for the Russian matrix.

The problem?

The fact that Lysenko’s Lamarkian proposition binds to the archeomodern groove for the Russian matrix does not make it correct.  Indeed, the binding is so strong that experiments are conducted over and over again, with slight variations, but always with the same results.  But, how can the experimental results turn out negative, when the proposition obviously fits our archeomodern groove?

Ah, now I can see how the archeomodern groove may be a trap.

0102 The concept of an archeomodern groove adds value to Dugin’s first task because it allows a way to envision how western European and Russian philosophies differ.

The Western archeomodern groove, composed of slogans by Anselm and Descartes, produces bindings that are so productive that western scientists want to dismiss the Western archeomodern groove.  Why?  People read popularized science in order to understand.  Yes, people want to understand.  People have faith, in God and in science.  Why don’t common folk only care about drab scientific results?  Why do they want to see how scientific models fit into a bigger picture?

Dugin wants to map the Russian archeomodern groove because it attracts and binds ideas that are satisfying, but scientifically impossible.  The Russian archeomodern groove is a trap.

02/7/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…On Strauss and Dugin” (Part 7 of 10)

0104 What about the second task?

Task two aims for a correct comprehension of the West.

I add, “Especially, the modern West.”

0105 Remember Descartes’ slogan, “I think, therefore I am.”

Modern scientists promise to satisfy an unlimited will to know1 in the normal context of expertise3.

Remember Anselm’s slogan, “Faith seeks understanding.”?

Modern scientists also imagine that they deliver the understanding1 that people seek2 in the normal context of faith3.  Otherwise, why write books popularizing scientific knowledge?

People are not interested in materials and methods.

0106 As the western archeomodern groove breaks down, I ask.  Is there understanding1 without faith3?  Does the invocation of the term, “cultural dynamics1“, satisfy the Cartesian will to know1?  Or, are modern and postmodern institutions producing narratives… I mean… nested forms that do not bind well to the otherwise productive archeomodern groove?

The corrupt bureaucrats say, “Trust the science.”

The people reply, “This makes no sense.  I do not understand.”

0107 Perhaps, a correct comprehension of the West starts with science.

Christian philosophers struggle to formulate science in terms of Aristotle (or, for Catholics, Thomas Aquinas).  Their struggle has been going on for centuries.

Last century, Jacques Maritain comes close to hitting the target.  In Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy, Razie Mah distills Maritain’s argument into two intertwined judgments: the Positivist’s and the empirio-schematic judgments.

0108 A judgment has a triadic structure.  It has three elements: relation, what is and what ought to be.  Each of these elements may be assigned to one category: firstness, secondness or thirdness.  Only one category per element is allowed.  Categories define the associated nested form.

Here is a picture of the Positivist’s judgment.

Figure 13

0109 A positivist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the dyad, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena(what is, firstness) into relation with an empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness).

The positivist intellect has a rule.  Metaphysics is not allowed.

0110 Note that what ought to be is also a judgment.

Figure 14

A disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness) into relation with mechanical and mathematical models (what ought to be, secondness).

0111 Questioning the Positivist’s judgment never works as anticipated.  If one criticizes the lack of metaphysics, one ends up trapped in a discussion couched in the disciplinary languages of the empirio-schematic judgment.  If one criticizes an empirio-schematic judgment , one gets accused of denying phenomena, the observable and measurable facets of their noumenon.  Or worse, one is dismissed as a metaphysician.

02/6/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…On Strauss and Dugin” (Part 8 of 10)

0112 Does a correct interpretation of the West entail an alternate vision of science?

There are many ways to describe science.  Who would describe science as two intertwined actionable judgments, that unfold into nested forms on the basis of their categorical assignments?

Razie Mah would.

0113 Even stranger, Razie Mah presents a series of commentaries, titled Phenomenology and the Positivist Intellect.  Several works appear in that series, including Comments on Jack Reynold’s Book (2018) “Phenomenology, Naturalism and Science”A Reverie on Mark Spencer’s Essay (2021) “The Many Phenomenological Reductions”Comments on Joseph Trabbic’s Essay (2021) “Jean-Luc Marion and… First Philosophy” and Comments on Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenological Reduction”.  These are promoted in blogs at www.raziemah.com during September and October, 2021, as well as during March and April, 2022.

0114 What is there in the Positivist’s judgment that a phenomenologist might fixate on?

Here is a picture.

Figure 15

Well, with a discipline called “phenomenology”, I imagine that the phenomenologist would fixate on what is.

But which side?  The noumenon?  Or its phenomena?

0115 A noumenon, the thing itself, cannot be fully objectified as its phenomena, its observable and measurable facets. Indeed, in the natural sciences (relation, thirdness), disciplinary languages model observations and measurements (what ought to be, secondness) of phenomena (what is, firstness), while ignoring their noumenon (what is, firstness).  In the 1920s and 1930s, the Vienna Circle proposes that noumena are completely irrelevant to our modern scientific world.

0116 There is a problem with this proposal.

Decades earlier, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938 AD) anticipates the issue and proposes an oddly named school, called, “Phenomenology”.  How is it oddly named?  Husserl strives to identify, in an intuitive way, what the noumenon must be.  Phenomenological reduction starts with the same phenomena as the empirio-schematic judgment, then brackets out all sorts of notions, such as traditional formulations, as well as the empirio-schematic judgment, in order to arrive at a declaration of what the noumenon must be.

Here is a picture.

Figure 16

0117 On what basis is the declaration made?

To me, the basis may correspond to what Heidegger calls “Da-Sein”.

If Da-Sein is the basis of discovering what the noumenon must be, then the noumenon must correspond to Sein, Being Itself.  

0118 Needless to say, Martin Heidegger (1899-1976) occupies the same Chair in Philosophy at the University of Freiberg that Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) retires from.

Coincidence?

0119 Dugin knows the link between Heidegger and Husserl.  Dugin says that understanding Heidegger’s philosophy is crucial to articulating a Russian philosophy.  Yet, I wonder whether Dugin is aware that Heidegger’s Sein may be the noumenon, the thing itself, which cannot be objectified as its phenomena.

If that speculative “may” proves fruitful, then Dugin is something of a prophet.  A correct comprehension of the modern West involves a correct comprehension of science. Heidegger says that the key to a correct interpretation of our scientific world starts with Dasein.  Dugin points to Heidegger and says, “Listen to this philosopher.”  What Heidegger says fulfills the second task.

0120 At this point, I add a purely speculative note.  I have a guess.  I have a curious feeling that Heidegger offers a big label to what the noumenon must be.  It is “Sein” (German for “being”).  Plus, “Dasein” (German for “there” and “being”) labels the human encounter with Sein.  Once these substitutions are made, then the remainder of the Positivist’s judgmentis eclipsed, or “bracketed out”.  Heidegger brands the noumenon, the thing itself, in a most philosophically encompassing manner.  There is a difference between Dasein and the lived experience and the consciousness in our modern age.

Here is a picture of the new beginning.  The Positivist’s judgment fades as Heidegger rides the noumenon into a promised land.  Promised to the people of Germany.

Figure 17

Well, that sounds dramatic.  Plus, it sounds somewhat theological.  It is enough to make me wonder, “Is there a phenomenology of the spirit?”

With that in mind, consider the blog, posted October 1, 2022, at www.raziemah.com, appealing to a German politician.  The title of the blog is “Fantasia in G-minor: A Speech Written for Gunnar Beck MEP”.

MEP stands for Member of the European Parliament.

Perhaps, there is an alternative for Germany.

02/4/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…On Strauss and Dugin” (Part 9 of 10)

0121 The third task elaborates a philosophy of chaos.

Why?

The narodthe ethnos born into our current Lebenswelt, confronts chaos.

How so?

0122 Here is a narrative that addresses mythos.

0123 The ethnos corresponds to us in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  In terms of culture, the ethnos consists of social circles within social circles (friends, intimates, family, teams, band, community, mega-band and tribe), as described in Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big.  These social circles adapt to one another and promote human flourishing.  These social circles operate in harmony.  These social circles are the foundations of the human sense of belonging.

0124 Then, the first singularity casts all that away.  Humans abandon the hand-talk component of their hand-speech talkin their efforts to mimic wealthier and more powerful cultures, who practice speech-alone talk.

The narod corresponds to us in our current Lebenswelt.  Because speech-alone talk potentiates unconstrained labor and social complexity, our social circles no longer work in harmony.  Indeed, new “social circles” are formulated, using specialized languages that come into being explicitly to exploit some advantage, like turning blue rock into copper metal or rotting milk into delicious cheese.

0125 The narod cannot return to the ethnos, even though the ethnos characterizes what we evolved to be.  Yet, somehow, we intuitively recall the harmony of the social circlesthe pleasures of constrained complexity and the sense of belonging.  Plus, we acknowledge that we are cast out of that world and our new world is ruled by a demiurge, a fantastic and cruel leviathan that draws people into organization.  This monster is visualized in chapter 6A in An Archaeology of the Fall.

0126 Out of a narod comes a people.

People long for order.  A people establishes an order.  Or, does an order establish a people? 

There are two ways to establish order.  Often, order spontaneously occurs.  Sometimes, order is imposed.  To the latter, the former appears as chaos.  How so?  Spontaneous order cannot be imposed.  Indeed, imposed order is threatened by chaos from without.  Imposed order is threatened by chaos from within.  And worse, the purveyors of an imposed ordermay feed off the fruits produced by a spontaneous order.

Some people call these purveyors, “Parasites.”

Parasites are agents of chaos, insofar as they prefer a fragile imposed order to a robust spontaneous order.

0127 Yes, there is a logos that walks with this mythos.

Dugin’s third task asks, “What is the philosophy of chaos?”

02/3/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…On Strauss and Dugin” (Part 10 of 10)

0128 Millerman’s essay would make Leo Strauss proud.

Millerman’s argument is exoteric.  Strauss and Dugin share an interest in Heidegger.  That is not the only feature that they have in common.  Therefore, a Straussian should not dismiss Dugin’s political philosophy out of hand.

0129 The centerpiece turns out to be a translation, by Millerman, of a list of what needs to be done, according to Dugin, in order to establish the possibility of a Russian philosophy.

0130 The three tasks involve…

…dismantling Russian archeomodernity.  Ironically, for Americans and western Europeans, the task is precisely the opposite.  For western Europe, the archeomodern groove is a receptor.  For Russia, the archeomodern groove is a trap.

…correctly comprehending the West.  Ironically, the West may not be comprehending itself.  The modern West is all about science.  But, what is science?  Is science a purely relational structure composed of the Positivist’s and empirio-schematic judgments?  Plus, is there something vulnerable within this relational structure?  Does phenomenology exploit that vulnerability?  Does Heidegger’s Sein correspond to the noumenon?  What happens to the West if noumena take on lives of their own?

….elaborating a philosophy of chaos.  The narod harbors cautionary wisdom that is ignored by modern political movements, who imitate the practices of the empirio-schematic judgment.  Chaos is not necessarily the absence of order.  Chaos may be the order that cannot be situated by sovereign power.

0131  The placement of Millerman’s translation, along with its surprising content, offers an esoteric message.

Recognize the possibility.

02/2/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “Heidegger, Left and Right” (Part 1 of 2)

0132 All the blogs for February 2023 at www.raziemah.com examine selected chapters from Michael Millerman’s book (2022) Inside “Putin’s Brain”: The Political Philosophy of Alexander Dugin.  Millerman has been studying Dugin’s works for over a decade.  If there is to be a truly philosophical underpinning to Eurasianism, then Dugin begins the quest.

As for this reviewer, my first endeavor to read Dugin, Comments on Alexander Dugin (2012) Fourth Political Theory, may be found at smashwords and other e-book venues.  I ask the question, “If I were to say what Dugin is saying, using triadic relations, then how would that work?”  The answer intrigues.

Obviously, I am not interested in whatever box the literati of modern political philosophy want to put Dugin in.  I am interested in the purely relational structures that Dugin reveals.

0133 So far, I reviewed chapters two and six.  In this blog, I will briefly touch on chapter nine.  Well, less that that.  I see a Greimas square in the seventh section of chapter nine.  Its title is “Theologico-Political Implications”.

In this section, Millerman hones down on the difference between the Heideggerian Left (HL) and Heideggerian Right (HR) in regards to the theological-political issue of the returning of the religious and the receding of the secular.

0134 Recall, Dugin’s formulation of “the people” associates to the following Greimas square.

Figure 01

0135 A is the focal term, “the people”.  What is the political expression of the people?  In America, the Declaration of Independence starts with “we, the people”.  So the answer is involved.  Suffice to say that, until recently, the political expression is the democratically elected representative.  Until recently?  Mailing out unsolicited ballots is unconstitutional.  It makes me wonder, what do modern intellectuals mean when they say the word, “democracy”.

B contrasts with A.  Here, the three political theories (of liberalism (1), communism (3), fascism (2) and big government (il)liberalism (1, again)) model phenomena of a prepolitical world in terms of the individual (1, 1-again), class membership (3) and citizenship and noncitizenship (2).

C contradicts B and implicates A.  Dugin uses the Russian word, “narod”, for prepolitical people that various schools of modern political philosophy regard as noumenon.  The people (A) are political.  The narod (C) is the people before being objectified by explicit political theories.  For me, the narod (C) is humanity in our current Lebenswelt.

D contrasts with C, contradicts A and implicates B.  Dugin uses the Russian word, “ethnos“.  The narod (C) comes out of the ethnos (D) and cannot return.  To me, the ethnos (D) is us in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  Our current Lebenswelt (narod (C)) is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (ethnos (D)).  The hypothesis of the fist singularity contributes an evolutionary dimension that complements Dugin’s theologico-political analysis.  

02/1/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “Heidegger, Left and Right” (Part 2 of 2)

0136 Dugin is an example of the Heideggerian Right (HR).  HR philosophers are few in number and for good reason.  They are considered to be the enemies of the Heideggerian Left (HL), who want to co-opt Heidegger for their theological-political convictions.

Millerman poses this question (more or less), “How does the HL view the theological-political issue of receding secularism and returning religiosity?”

0137 Here is how I associate the discussion to the Greimas square.

Figure 02

0138 According to the HL, A, democracy is under threat because…

0139 …B, democracy must be secular.

Even though secular is an adjective and democracy is a noun and therefore B contrasts with A, secular is a necessary qualifier.  A democracy cannot be a democracy unless it is secular.  Hence, when HL-friendly pundits on public-private partner television say the word, “democracy”, they actually mean “secular democracy”.

0140 C contradicts B and complements A.  C is religious.  Non-secular means religious, just as secular means “not religious”.  But, this too is wordplay, since religions are not “non-secular”, they are believers in an ultimate foundation, D.  However, from the HL Greimas square, C is nonsecular.

At this point, secular institutions take on a scientific glow.  The secular (B) use theoretical disciplinary languages to model observations and measurements of social phenomena.  Naturally, these models end up defining the options available for ballots in… um… a democracy (A).  Thus, the ultimate foundation (D) complements the secular (B) because it (D) does not exist.

0141 D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B.  Already, I know how D complements B.  The fact that an ultimate foundation fills the slot for (D) yet does not exist, according to HL, reveals the nature of the way the ultimate foundation (D) is its own lacking.

Surely, this sounds like a contradiction in terms.  But, that is the way HL rolls.

There is no God.  There is no ethnos.  The possibility that these statements (D) are wrong contradict (A), “democracy”, which, according to HL, must be godless (B).  If these statements are incorrect, then the political system would not be a “democracy”, but a “theocracy”.

0142 Okay, HL is into wordplay.

The Heideggerian Right takes the Heideggerian Left’s wordplay at face value, producing the following remake of the HL Greimas square.

Figure 03

0143 As before, A, the focal word, is “democracy”.

0144 B contrasts with A, in the way that an adjective contrasts with a noun.  The secret handshake allows HL pundits to indicate a secular democracy when they use the word, “democracy”, and use the word, “theocracy”, when religious folk take to the ballot box.

0145 C contradicts B because the word, “radical” (C), means “rooted”, and “secular” (B) means not religious.  This implies that the radical (C) adheres to emptiness (D) with the same conviction that the religious, er… non-secular (C) adheres to an ultimate foundation (D).  No wonder the radical (C) strives to eradicate the ontological and theological facets (phenomena) of the narod.  The radical (C) creates conditions where other social phenomena (such as the individual, class membership, the roles of citizen and noncitizen) can be observed and measured by modern scientifically minded theoreticians (B).

0146 Emptiness (D) entails the absence of (1) an ultimate foundation encompassing both God and humans, (2) the ethnos, (3) what we evolved to be and (4) the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B.

Emptiness (D) contrasts with radical (C) because it (C) is rooted in ‘something’ (however ephemeral, such as an act of will).

Emptiness (D) contradicts democracy (A) because the implementation of secular policies (B) reveals the root (C) to be a pure act of will, rather than a product of say… philosophical inquiry.

Emptiness (D) complements the secular (B) because the secular knows that its politics will undermine whatever traditions that they are rooted in (C).

0147 In sum, the HL diagram celebrates democracy (A) and the secular (B) while denying the religious (C) and the possibility of an ultimate foundation (D).  The HR view of the HL diagram positively labels the negative attitude towards religion as “radical” (C) and the denial of an ultimate foundation (D) as “emptiness”.

0148 To me, the Greimas square for the HL and for what the HR thinks of the HL’s views must be regarded as funny.  Perhaps, hilarious.

How so?

The ethnos is where our sense of humor evolves.  The narod is where people formulate jokes.  The secular is where people lose their sense of humor .  Democracy is where the comedy of the humorless plays out on the world stage.

0149 I do not know whether Heidegger’s “fourfold” or “das Geviert” can be re-articulated as a Greimas square.  It might be worth trying.  Perhaps, use of the Greimas square will allow the HL to take themselves less seriously and the HR to chuckle under their beards.  The problem, of course, is that Dugin is no longer laughing, because the ones who take themselves seriously have designated him, not as a philosopher, but as a threat.

Pray for the soul of Alexander Dugin’s daughter.

0150 My thanks to Millerman for his excellent book.  Please check out the Millerman School and dugin.com.