0032 At this juncture, I am looking for ways to appreciate how D implicates B when D appears to be something like the transit between C and B.
Somehow, D contrasts with C and D implicates B serves like a conduit that flows back around the rule that C contradicts B.
0033 Here is another example of a Greimas square, drawn from a January 2023 blog at www.raziemah.com. The Greimas square concerns the temptation and fall of Eve in Genesis.
Figure 11
0034 A is a singular tree at the center of the garden of Eden.
B is the name that God gives the tree, along with that commandment about not eating its fruit, lest Adam and Eve die.
C clearly speaks against B, because the discussion between the serpent and Eve negates obedience to the commandment.
D contrasts with C, because D denotes the consequences of the temptation. If C is a question, then D is an answer.
D complements B, because Eve and Adam’s eyes are opened. And what do they first see? They see that they are naked.
0035 Okay, what happens when I substitute D into A, do I get another Greimas square?
I sure do. D, the fall of Eve, occurs when she eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Here are my associations.
Figure 12
0036 A is the act of eating the fruit from the singular tree.
B is the rebellion of Adam and Eve. They broke God’s commandment not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. B contrasts with A. B goes with guilt. A goes with crime.
C is the punishment. The punishment (C) fulfills the legal implications (B) of God’s commandment.
D is a remainder. When God commands Adam not to eat from the singular tree, He adds, “…lest you die.” But, in the story, Adam and Eve go on to live outside of Eden (which still harbors the tree of life). So, the question arises. If Adam and Eve do not die, then what exactly does die?
0037 Does a path from C through D to B circle around the path from B to C?
Yes and no. Yes, the termini are the same. No, former path adds the awareness that a transit between Adam and Eve being cast out of the garden (C) and the rebellion of Adam and Eve (C) is what?… Adam and Eve losing their opportunity for immortality (D)? Is that the same as death?
Here is a picture.
Figure 13
This pattern is identical to the prior example where the contiguity, “cannot be objectified as” (D), adds awareness to the way that a noumenon (C) contradicts its phenomena (B).
If I match this bible-inspired Greimas square with Dugin’s, I arrive at the following correspondences.
A is the people, who have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whether they like it or not. The deed is done. The only recourse is baptism, which washes away the stain of original sin.
B is the person, objectified as the subject of various political disciplines. Liberalism, communism and fascism objectify the person according to particular phenomena, such as individual, class member, citizen and role-bearer. Well, if anyone is going to feast at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and celebrate their rejection of the logos, then it is going to be the purveyors of the three political theories that Dugin rejects.
C is the narod, corresponding to Adam and Eve cast out of the garden of Eden. The narod parodies the act ofeating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (A),because the only knowledge that the narod gains is on a need to knowbasis. They realize that they are naked and better get some cover. Pronto!
0038 The narod shares the same fate as Adam and Eve (C). However, the narod (C) contradicts the rebellion (B) in that they did not directly receive the commandment that Adam and Eve received. They did not commit the crime, yet share its consequences.
D is the ethnos. The ethnos is where the narod comes from and where the narod cannot return to. This ethnos is us. The ethnos is the “you” who died.
Sweet Eden (D) speaks against the people (A), forever entangled in their constructions of good and evil. Us losing our chance for immortality (D) contrasts with where we are right now (C) and complements our apparent inability to stop formulating models of our observations and measurements of current human behavior (B).
0039 In the following blog, I take the analogy to the next level.
0041 Here is the second strange Biblical association.
Figure 15
0042 A comparison takes the inquirer straight into an unanticipated opportunity to reconfigure the doctrine of Original Sin. Modern academic Christians have been trying that for years, to no avail. That is because Augustine of Hippo is not irrelevant. It just turns out that the scientific aspect of his doctrine has been disproven. All humanity does not directly descend from the loins of Adam. But, the theological aspect is alive and well, as the Greimas squares demonstrate.
What is required is a new scientific hypothesis.
0043 One component of a new hypothesis appears in the e-works The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace (a plain formulation) and An Archaeology of the Fall (a dramatic portrayal), by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
In the year 2022, neither Alexander Dugin nor Michael Millerman are aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity.
0044 The hypothesis starts with an observation. Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
How so?
0045 The Lebenswelt that we evolved in spans around two million years. Once hominins are bipedal, their arms are free to gesture to one another. This allows the evolution of talk. At first, hominins pantomime their meanings, presences and messages. Then, the manual-brachial gestures become familiar, then routine, and hand talk evolves. Hand talk consists of routinized manual-brachial gestures that are used in particular social normal contexts, especially teamwork. Manual-brachial gestures work because they picture and point to their referents. They are icons and indexes. They are natural signs. Routinization turns these gestures into systems of differences.
Language evolves in the milieu of handtalk. Ferdinand de Saussure defines language as two related systems of differences, parole (talk) and langue (mental processing of signs). The story is told in the masterwork The Human Niche. Once hominins domesticate fire, starting around eight-hundred thousand years ago, symbolic operations become general and grammar evolves.
Fire and linguistic hand talk allow hominins to prosper. When humans evolve, speech gets added to hand talk. Anatomically modern humans practice a dual-mode way to talking, hand-speech talk, for two-hundred thousand years, until the first singularity. The semiotics of hand-speech talk are yet to be explored. Hand-speech talk is grounded in the iconicity and indexality of hand talk. Since speech cannot picture or point to anything, speech adorns hand talk and allows novel styles of social grooming.
0046 If all civilized humans practice speech-alone talk, then how do we get from hand-speech talk to where we are now?
The rupture starts with the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia. The Sumerian language is unrelated to any family of languages. Why would this be so? It is a creole, a language that emerges from the fusion of other languages. When two groups coalesce, they practice pidgin. Pidgin is composed of words, from two or more languages, without much grammar. Then, over time, children weave the pidgin into a language with grammar.
As it turns out, the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia forms out of the fusion of two hand-speech talking cultures. In the pidgin, the hand component ofhand-speech talk is lost, leaving speech-alone. From a pidgin of spoken words, the children of the Ubaid weave the first speech-alone language.
0047 The semiotics of speech-alone talk is vastly different from hand-speech talk. The Ubaid constitutes the first narod.
Remember, speech-alone talk cannot picture or point to its referents. So, what does a spoken word really mean? The narod of the Ubaid starts to create artifacts that valid certain novel speech-alone words. In doing so, they generate novel labor specialties, such as shepherd, goat-herder, reed-harvester, farmer, beer-brewer, potter and transporter. They construct novel social specialties such as king and priest and warrior and missionary and on and on. The Ubaid becomes wealthy and powerful.
The surrounding Neolithic hand-speech talking cultures cannot help but notice. Speech-alone talk spreads on the wings of mimicry.
Today, all civilizations practice speech-alone talk.
0048 Around 7800 years later after the start of the Ubaid, the hypothesis of the first singularity is formulated. Speech-alone talk characterizes our current Lebenswelt, filled with unconstrained social complexity.
Hand-speech (and hand-) talk characterizes the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, filled with constrained social complexity. Constrained? All our ancestral social circles work in harmony. Intimates, family, teams, bands, community, mega-band and tribe draw nourishment from the soil and branch out into our tree of life. Eden is paradise because, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, we are who we evolved to be.
0049 The hypothesis of the first singularity allows me to add a correlation, that further develops the contrast between the narod (C) and the ethnos (D).
0050 Eden, the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, is where we, in our current Lebenswelt, come from, but cannot return to. The myth of Adam and Eve says it all.
The ethnos is where the narod comes from and cannot return to.
Figure 17
0051 The implications weave together psychology, sociology and biology.
How can the ethnos (D), the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, serve as the transit between the narod, emerging in our current Lebenswelt (C), and the person as objectified subject (B)?
Does each -ism appeal to our innate imaginations by offering an explicit abstraction, a forbidden fruit, that is desirous to the eyes, tastes sweet, and is desired to make one wise?
Does a narod (C) accepts the Luciferian suggestions (B) in the process of becoming a people (A)?
0052 Dugin proposes his fourth political theory in a world broken by our appetites for explicit abstractions. We have been sold tickets (B) back to Eden (D). Where do our travels bring us? Our travels meet a flaming sword that turns in all directions. A cherubim blocks the way.
Dugin speaks to the people.
His proposal has ethnosociological and existential dimensions.
We are more than individuals, class members, citizens and role-bearers.
We are a narod, on a quest to find who we are supposed to be.
Who do you say that we are?
0053 My thanks to Michael Millerman for his excellent summary of these two dimensions of Alexander Dugin’s political philosophy.
0054 Allow me to cut to the chase. The reason why Millerman writes this chapter is simple. He wants to defend the serious study of Dugin before admirers of the political philosopher Leo Strauss.
Why would Millerman want to do that?
When Millerman declares the topic of his doctoral thesis at the University of Toronto, four members of his dissertation committee resign. Two are Straussians. The actions of these two are particularly poignant, since Millerman self-identifies as a maven of Strauss.
0055 Maven?
Yes, the term fits. This chapter, number six in the collection of essays under one title, Inside Putin’s Brain: The Political Philosophy of Alexander Dugin, (available at Amazon and other hardcover book venues) plays Straussian themes. The essay is exoteric. The essay is esoteric. There is a message in the middle. Plus, that message comes from Dugin himself.
Of course, I do not say this lightly. I have my own philosophical axe to grind, so to speak. Yet, the clever Millerman has already prepared his text, so to speak. The essay cleaves into three parts. The introduction discusses two philosophical dances, one between Heidegger and Strauss and the other between Heidegger and Dugin. The middle translates an excerpt from Alexander Dugin’s Book (2011) Martin Heidegger and the Possibility of Russian Philosophy. The end recapitulates the introduction.
I cannot axe for more.
0056 Millerman’s text is an example of the semitic (as opposed to the greek) textual style (as discussed in An Instructor’s Guide to An Archaeology of the Fall). The pattern is A:B:A’.
The semitic textual style asks the reader to recognize a possibility.
0057 What is the possibility that Millerman wants us to recognize?
Dugin and Strauss have a lot in common. Both dance with the one Heidegger. Both address a key question, articulated by ancient Greek philosophers, that defines classical political philosophy.
Leo Strauss ends up asking the question that moderns evade. According to the political philosophers in our current Age of Ideas, the political order institutes organizational objectives in the names of the righteousness of the individual, the class member, the citizen and the unrighteousness of the one who cannot be a citizen. The ancient questions are ignored. The political order is a means to an end. Plus, modern experts define that end in the name of an objectified subject. We are who the experts say that we are.
And that is not good.
0059 To oversimplify Millerman’s account, Strauss’s story starts with Spengler’s cultural relativism and ends with the eternal, natural philosophy of Plato. Spengler conceives of a comprehensive theoretical project, where (as Strauss frames it) the task of philosophy is to understand various cultures as the expression of souls.
To me, that sounds like a huge complicated project.
So, of course Martin Heidegger, who sits in the same academic chair once occupied by Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, says, “Let me give this a try.”
0060 Now, projection is a huge temptation in trying Spengler’s project. As soon as one projects one’s own terminology into the past, then the past will conform to present academic expectations. Here is a clue that Heidegger avoids this temptation. Heidegger claims that modern philosophers do not understand Aristotle or Plato, at least, not in the ancient Greeks’ own terms.
The admission pleases Leo Strauss, who happens to agree.
Out, out, damned projection!
0061 Historical studies are welcome. Historicism, the ideology that philosophy is a symptom of the culture and the age, be damned.
Alexander Dugin wants to know whether there can be such a project as Russian political philosophy. To me, this is a great question, because if there is a Russian political philosophy, then is should be as entertaining as an American political philosophy, starting from… say… the mound builders at Poverty Point, Louisiana. I suspect that there is. Let me take a look at the Book of Mormon.
0063 Dugin, the Russian, is drawn to Heidegger, the German, because the wizard has found two philosophical golden tablets. One tablet offers to develop a philosophically adequate account of cultures as expressions of souls(corresponding to Dasein). The other tablet promises a return to a study of the ancients as they are, rather than what we project upon them. Not unlike the intrepid American, Joseph Smith, Dugin must translate these tablets into his native language. Joseph Smith translates angelic script. Alexander Dugin translates Heidegger’s German.
0064 To me, English (for Smith) and Russian (for Dugin) are only networks within a larger web of consciousness. They allow us to envision a star, in the constellation of virtues, that is some sort of Omega Point. Over time, our mundane earth rises towards the celestial earth, which itself moves towards a stellar Omega Point, as Teilhard de Chardin envisions. See A Primer on Classical Political Philosophy, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0065 Well, Millerman does not mention any of this.
My flight of fancy soars into the joint between the end of the introduction and a translation of Alexander Dugin’s plans, as they appear in the 2011 Russian edition of Martin Heidegger and the Possibility of Russian Philosophy (Moscow: Academic Project).
Sort of like an axe hitting a soft spot.
0066 Dugin’s masterplan contains three tasks, (1) dismantling archeomodernity, (2) correctly comprehending the West and (3) elaborating a philosophy of chaos.
0067 On one hand, I think, “Whoa. Dugin’s tasks are more ambitious than John Deely’s project to describe the arc of philosophical history in terms of the development of the causality inherent in signs.”
Deely’s book, Four Ages of Understanding (2001) runs over a thousand pages. It is published by the… um… University of Toronto.
0068 On the other hand, I think, “Well, maybe, Dugin’s tasks are not as ambitious as the tasks proposed on October 1, 2022, of Razie Mah’s blog, under the title, A Fantasia in G-Minor: A Speech Written for Gunnar Beck MEP.”
MEP is an acronym for “Member of the European Parliament”.
0069 In the following blogs, I will present a stream of consciousness for each of Dugin’s heroic tasks.
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.
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.
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 am1) to 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.
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.
