0005 How to begin?

Here is how Looking at Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein’s Book (2021) The Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21^stCentury ends.  A BG(il)L education system may be depicted as a two-level interscope.  The two level interscope is introduced in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  A two-level interscope associates to sensible construction.

0006 On the content level, the normal contexts of individual and institutional development_3a bring the actuality of certification_2a into relation with the potential of ‘personal and government motivations’_1a.  Note that the individual and the institution belong to the normal context_3a and potential_1a, implying that the individual adopts motivations promulgated by the state.  There is word for the condition where a person adopts the motivations of a governmental system in order to get ahead (in this case, certified_2a).  Dare I say the colloquial version of that word?

0007 On the situation level, the normal context of individual and cultural selection_3b brings the actuality of specialization_2b into relation with the potential of ’employment’_1b.  This implies that ‘a job’ conveys the potential of the entire content level nested form.  What might be an alternative?  How about ‘character development’?

With that idea in mind, take a look at the normal context_3b once again.  Both individual and cultural selection_2b endeavor to fill specialized_2b jobs_1b with individuals willing to (dare I say the word?) to government systems in order to get ahead.  Perhaps, I can call the process, “unnatural selection”.

0008 Who would volunteer to become hostages… er… collaborators to such a system?

Betsy DeVos’s political adversaries.

Indeed, they would volunteer every child to become a hostage in their BG(il)L system.  After all, being a hostage is good for them.  Being a hostage turns them into collaborators (rather than sovereign individuals).  Being a hostage_2a is the pathway to getting a job_1b.

0009 The BG(il)L system is not about character development, which requires guidance.  It is all about expertise, which requires instruction.  Experts are specialists_2b.  Experts are certified_2a to participate in particular occupations_1b. Specializations_2b virtually situate certification_2a.

The two-level operation appears sensible.  DeVos talks about mastery of subject.  Is that the same as expertise?  These terms belong to a level that does not appear in the above figures.  The perspective level only becomes visible when the content and situation levels fail.  Is the above sensible construction failing?  Well, I already know that it fails anyone who does not want to conform their personal motivations_1a to the desires of the state_1a in order to get a job_1b.

0010 Does this fit with DeVos’s storyline?

I think so.  DeVos writes as if she holds a perspective-level solution to mandatory BG(il)L education systems.  Subject mastery_2c is not the same as expertise_2c.

0011 The prior blog provides a glimpse into the perspective-level actuality_2c that contextualizes America’s established BG(il)L education system.  Here is how experties_2c fits into the picture.

0012 The perspective-level normal context_3c and potential_1c are not obvious.  The perspective-level actuality_2c is.

Expertise_2c virtually brings specialization_2b into relation with the potential of certification_2a.  This is obvious.

The perspective-level normal context_3c and potential_1c are not so obvious, because the situation- and content-level normal contexts, as well as the potentials, confound the individual, the institution and the government.

0013 Here is a picture.

0014 The perspective-level virtually brings the situation-level into relation with the potential of the content-level.  In this instance, “virtual” could mean either “in simulation” (the modern option) or “in virtue” (the scholastic option).

0015 For actuality, expertise_2c virtually brings specializations_2b into relation with the potential of certification_2a.

For the column of normal contexts, a BG(il)L perspective_3c virtually brings individual and cultural selection_3b into relation with the potentials of individual and institutional development_3a.  The perspective-level normal context_3c must embody the government_1a that appears in the content-level potential_1a.  The normal context_3c also must set the stage for cultural selection_3b, in regards to both individuals (who are selected for specialization_2b) and institutions (who are selected for providing the education leading to certification_2a).

Betsy DeVos says, over and over, that the Federal Department of Education is concerned about institutions (such as colleges, school districts, administrators and unionized teachers), rather than students.  They are interested in processes that provide instructions leading to certification (for students motivated to fit into an already established menu of specializations).  They could not care less about what students really need.  They presume that students need to conform to their programs, their goals and their definition of what students must know in order to acquire certification.

0016 What label applies to the perspective-level normal context_3c?

Would the term, “big government”, suffice?

0017 The perspective-level potential_1c virtually contextualizes jobs_1b, while jobs_1b virtually situate personal and governmental motivations_1a.  What is the nature of this perspective-level potential_1c?  First, it defines jobs_1b through regulatory controls.  For example, a government may decree that only certain specializations_2b (which much be certified_2a) are allowed to perform certain tasks… er… jobs_1b.  Second, governmental motivations_1a are taken for granted by people motivated_1a to become specialized_2b in order to obtain well-defined jobs_1b.

In other words, the government maintains regulatory control of the situation (jobs_1b) while providing the appearance that the individual is free to choose his or her own destiny (personal motives_1a).  In the process, government motivations_1a are simply taken for granted and not contested.  After all, it would not be sensible to contest government motivations_1a.  Most students and parents have no clue that their ambitions are pursued in conformity with government agendas.

0018 What label applies to the perspective-level potential_1c?

Would the term, “(il)liberal”, do the trick?

Well, what does (il)liberal mean?

Liberalism elevates individual autonomy… say, sovereignty… above various authorities, including religious institutions, businesses, civic networks, military organizations, governments, and so forth.  So, the prefix, (il), is hidden because there is an unacknowledged exception.  The government is excepted.  So, (il)liberalism provides the appearance of individual autonomy while maintaining government regulatory control.

The virtual nested form in firstness says, “(Il)liberalism_1c virtually brings jobs_1b into relation with the potentials of personal and governmental motivations_1a.”

0019 Here is the perspective-level nested form for BG(il)L education.

0020 Here is a picture of what Betsy Devos faces when she is appointed the head of the federal Department of Education.

0021 Once again, (il)liberalism provides the feeling of individual autonomy (where the individual is sovereign) while simultaneously creating the conditions (because the state is sovereign) that big-government directed processes (such as, certification) are mandated.

0022 This produces an awkward realization.

If students are hostages to BG(il)L education systems, then they are because their captors_3a are themselves hostages_3b to the normal context of big government_3c.

As such, the captors_3b, who are also hostages to big government_3c, want institutional development_3a to be the key aspect of the content-level normal context, rather than individual development_3a.  They must project the illusion that institutional development_3a translates into individual development_3a.  In other words, individual development_3a is held hostage to institutional development_3a.

0023 Will this change with the political implementation of education freedom?

Well, allow me to replace two elements in the previous interscope.

Educational initiatives_3c becomes the perspective-level normal context.

Freedom_1c becomes the perspective-level potential.

0024 Here is a diagram with the substitution.

0025 Is this the vision of Betsy DeVos?

No wonder the knives are out at the Department of Education, the school unions, and the corporate media.

0026 BG_3c(il)L_1c must not be replaced by state intiatives_3c and educational freedom_1c.

On one hand, to certain stakeholders, big government_3c is supposed to take the initiative_1c in actualizing the importance of expertise_2c.

On the other hand, Betsy DeVos sees states and localities as the ones determining the perspective-level normal context.  Throughout the book, she cites example after example of states and localities creating and maintaining educational initiatives_3c.  Plus, there is no mandate for education listed in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.  So, the federal government has no warrant for intervention in the field of education.  Except, of course, as a ploy to get President Jimmy Carter re-elected.

0027 So, I know where the Department of Education stands in regards to where BG_3c(il)L_1c ought to be.

0028 State and local initiatives_3c contextualize a perspective-level actuality_2c that manifests the potential of educational freedom_1c.

0029 What is freedom_1c and how is it different from (il)liberalism_1c?

(Il)liberalism_1c maintains regulatory control while promoting the appearance of individual autonomy.

Freedom_1c requires the person to take initiatives in the face of uncertainty.

0030 What do I mean by freedom_1c?

The virtual nested form in the realm of potential says, “The normal context of educational freedom_1c brings the actuality of one’s occupation_1b into relation with the potential of ‘both personal motivations and the perspective-level normal context of educational initiatives’_1a.”

What is a one word label for the perspective-level normal context of local initiatives_1c projecting motivational awareness into the content-level potential_1a?

Does the term, “empowerment”, apply?

0031 Uh-oh, Betsy DeVos now replaces three elements in the interscope of BG_3c(il)L_1c education.

0032 Obviously, DeVos’s use of the term, “empowerment”, does not coincide with its use the normal context of big-government_3c.  For BG(il)L, “empowerment” conveys the illusion of individual autonomy within the (hidden) normal context of regulatory control.  

0033 When a parent and a student hear the word, “empowerment”, they imagine that there is only one meaning to the term.  Is that not the way that spoken words work? Words are placeholders in a system of differences.  One cannot have one placeholder in two systems of differences.

Or… can one?

Obviously, the meaning of the word, “empowerment”, depends on whether the perspective-level normal context is the Department of Education’s big government_3c or Betsy DeVos’s creative initiatives_3c.

0034 Is this some sort of language game?

Betsy DeVos made a move, substituting a new terms in for three elements of the BG(il)L interscope.

What are her opponents, the devotees of BG(il)L, going to do?

0035 What is the opposite of freedom? 

How about slavery?

Slavery is a system where every person is certain to have a job.  It is the ultimate act of equal employment.  Slavery is the ultimate occupation in terms of certainty, even though no one wants the jobs.

0036 What does this imply?

Freedom associates to uncertainty.

Slavery associates to certainty.

BG(il)L offers the facade of individual autonomy while retaining regulatory control.

BG(il)L offers the facade of freedom while keeping the subject a slave.

BG(il)L offers, in a world filled with uncertainty, certainty.

If you get the certificate_2a, then you will get a job_1b that shows that you belong to a profession_2b.  That is certainty_1c.

BG(il)L initiatives_3c cultivate certainty_1c and job security_1b.

Betsy DeVos’s initiatives_3c create uncertainty_1c and jobs that are not defined by federal regulations_1b.

0037 Here is a picture of how the manipulative permanent members of the Department of Education respond to the establishment-challenging rhetoric of Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of the Department of Education. 

Power must be restored to the bureaucrats,.

0038 What does this back and forth imply?

In the imperial capital, it is all a game of words.  Each technical term, such as “empowerment” and “freedom”, has one meaning in the interscope of BG(il)L_3c and another meaning in the interscope of Betsy DeVos_3c, the eleventh Secretary at the Department of Education.

0039 The three-level interscope is the game board.

Betsy DeVos makes a move.

The establishment counters.

0040 Given the tussle between the established players of the Department of Education and the Secretary of the Same Department, I wonder.

Are there any other tussles going on?

After all, this rhetorical game of element substitution for the interscope of BG(il)L education can also be played by factions within the Department of Education itself.

0043 The Department of Education’s BG(il)L perspective serves the interests of a central government attempting to manage individual ambitions by providing pathways to specializations_2b, hence jobs_1b, through certification_2a.  The central government engages in cultural selection_3b (in the specializations that they regulate) and individual selection_3b (in that individuals exercise automony_1a in their alignment with BG(il)L incentives_1a towards certification_2a).

0044 So, what happens if factions within the central government desire more?

What if a faction desires to manage the individual itself?

How weird can BG_3c(il)L_1c get?

0045 Well, I already know that, in some universities in the West, social constructivism replaces all fields of inquiry that presume that humans encounter mind-independent realities (including the reality of others’ mind-dependent beings, both past and present).

Indeed, social constructivism replaces the potential of truth with the potential of the human will.

Or, something like that.

0046 See Looking at Sad Gaad’s Book (2020) Parasitic Mind, at Razie Mah’s blog, running in April 2023.

What do individuals socially construct?

Identity.

My identity becomes my job_1b.

The group that I identify with becomes my specialization_2b.  Another word for specialization is “lifestyle_2b“.  What are your chosen pronouns?

Individual and cultural selection_3b then morphs into group-identity… er… lifestyle selection_3b.

0047 Here is a picture of the substitutions on the situation level.

0048 For the perspective level, BG(il)L interventions_3c replace big government_3c.

These interventions_3c select in favor of some lifestyles_3b (take a guess, I bet that none of the guesses describe Betsy DeVos) and against other lifestyles_3b (take a guess, I bet that many of the guesses apply to Betsy DeVos).

Indeed, a whole new suite of expertise is demanded.  This expertise_2c is capable of explaining BG(il)L perspective-level interventions_3c in terms of social justice, critical theory and social constructivism.  Interventional expertise_2c emerges from (and situates) the potential of ‘certainty’_1c.  In turn, certainty_1c virtually contextualizes identity_1b.  Plus, identity_1bvirtually situates the personal choice that one is groomed for_1a.

0049 Here is how the “woke” faction of the Department of Education alters the three-level interscope of BG(il)L.

0050 Surely, Gad Saad, Heather Heying, Bret Weinstein and Betsy DeVos address an unanticipated historical moment,marked by a failure of the Federal Department of Education to maintain the virtual nested form of (il)liberalism_1cbringing jobs_1b into relation with the possibility that individuals are motivated_1a to become certified_2a as specialists_2bwho will then fill those jobs_1b.  The student loan crisis is a symptom of that failure.  Students are not getting the jobs_1bthat they are specialized_2b in, indicating a failure of the federal educational system_3b.

0051 In contrast, Betsy DeVos proposes educational_3c freedom_1c.

Her proposals alter the ongoing BG(il)L three-level paradigm.

Indeed, these are just the beginning.

0052 Federal bureaucrats counter with BG(il)L initiatives_2c that promise certainty_1c, rather than the uncertainty that they rhetorically associate with freedom_1c.

0053 At the same time, a faction within the Federal Department of Education wakes up.  They see that the central government is no longer interested in just regulating the organization tier. It wants to control the society and individual in community tiers as well.

Plus, the central government is catastrophically failing in its control of the economic sphere, as witnessed in the fact that (1) certified individuals are saddled with enormous amounts of debt that they cannot seem to pay off and (2) one of the (if not the) largest assets of the federal government consists in student loans.

This faction becomes “woke”, initiating a substantial overhaul of the BG(il)L interscope on the basis of three intellectual movements: social justice, critical theory and social constructivism.

0054 None of these interscopes are fixed.  They are like pictures of a chessboard during certain moments in a tournament.  At the same time, they suggest what is at stake.  If federally financed education is not about training for jobs_1b, then is education about being groomed for an identity_1b?

The game plays out in the theater of politics, just like Shakespeare’s King Lear plays out in a conventional theater.  Actors speak their lines, hoping to convince a naive audience that their stories are real.  But, the real drama goes on in the minds of the audience, who are constantly asking themselves, “What the hell is going on?”