0015 Now, I associate the elements above and below the situation level to nested form. The result is an interscope, as described in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
0016 The perspective levelc stands above the situation levelb.
On this level, an unnamed, “not religious” normal context3c brings the actuality of a permanent revolution2c into relation with the potential of ‘social justice’1c.
The potential of ‘social justice’1c contextualizes the entire situation levelb.
0017 The content levela stands below the situation levelb.
On this level, the normal context of affiliation3a brings the dyadic actuality of group [contiguity] individual2a into relation with the potential of ‘identity’1a.
How should I label the contiguity between the two real elements of group and individual?
I choose the word, “subsumes”.
The group [subsumes] the individual2a.
0018 These associations yield a three-level interscope for the progressive agenda.
0019 At this juncture, I stand at the threshold of the section titled, “Progressive Depersonalization”.
Michaud claims that the progressive agenda depersonalizes the individual. He starts with the ironic, progressive slogan: The personal is the political.
0020 In order to appreciate this slogan, I start with the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality. A virtual nested form is a feature of a three-level interscope. It consists of a column in one of the three elements.
Here is a picture of the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality for the progressive interscope.
Figure 08
0021 This virtual nested form may be spoken as follows.
The normal context of permanent revolution2c virtually brings the dyadic actuality, economics [transforms] morals & culture2b, into the potential of group [subsumes] individual2a.
This nested form operates as a demiurge. A demiurge is a gnostic divinity that is forever building its world. It is typically opposed to another demiurge that is forever building an opposite world. So, it is always one demiurge against another.
0022 Of course, I can easily guess the identity of the opposing demiurge.
The opposing demiurge is the one that victimizes individuals who do not conform to morality or culture, thereby inspiring them to identify with a victim group.
Here is a comparison of the actuality2 of the traditional slogan and the actuality2b of the situation-level of the progressive agenda.
Figure 09
0023 Clearly, economic intervention2b is a tool for the permanent revolution2c to use, in order to transform the ways that traditional morality sustains culture2b.
Also, of all the groups that subsume the individual2a, none can involve traditional morality and culture2.
0024 Why?
In Christian morality, the individual is called into mystical union with Jesus Christ, one of the three Persons of the Triune Godhead. So, the “group2a” is actually the divine oikos, or the economy of God. This is discussed in the second interlude in How To Define the Word “Religion”.
The individual2a does not adopt an identity1a. The individual2a becomes an identity1a.
0025 What is identity1a?
Ah, in the Christian schema, identity1a is the person that I call “me”. It1a is not a group2a affiliation3a.
In Jungian terminology, the assumption of the individual into the divine oikos is called, “individuation”. It is not called, “subsumption”.
0026 So, Michaud is on target in claiming that the progressive agenda depersonalizes the individual.
It does so by re-defining the word, “identity”.
In the progressive ideation, identity1a is the potential underlying group affiliation3a and supports the subsumption of the individual into a political group2a.
In the progressive agenda, the content-level actuality2a is a dyad, group [subsumes] individual2a.
The word, “individual”, no longer means a person who stands before God. The individual reduces to someone carrying a group identification tag.
Similarly, identity1a potentiates group affiliation3a, not the person that I call “me”.
0028 Michaud calls this, “depersonalization”.
With this in mind, I consider the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility for the progressive interscope.
Figure 10
0029 The normal context of social justice1c virtually brings the actualities of ideological apparatuses (such as state education, justice system and corporate media, to name a few)1b into relation with the possibilities inherent in identity1a.
If “justice” is a virtue for traditional folk, then “social justice1c” is a hegemonic, demiurgic alternative. Social justice1ccontextualizes the actuality of economics [transforming] morals [&] culture2b and answers the question, “When is justice (in the traditional frame) injustice (in the progressive frame)?”
0030 Here is one of the resulting twists.
The category-based nested form for the traditional view appears below.
The arrows, however, depict trans-categorical flows from the progressive point of view.
Figure 11
0031 Is this a misperception? Or, is this an accusation?
To the progressive, there is one deterministic flow to the traditional schema. Religion3 flows through morality and culture2 and pours into alienating political systems and exploitative economic arrangements1.
To the traditionalist, there are two transcategorical flows. Religion3 flows into morality2. Politics and economics1 enliven culture2, through cooperative and laborious human action.
0032 According to progressive doctrine, traditional morals and culture2 yield economic and political structures1 that inherently victimize groups that do not adhere to the morals and the cultural expectations of the dominant tradition. That is, religion3 promulgates a morality2, that sustains a culture2, bent on victimizing those who are “not religious”. The victimization occurs through political and economic means1.
0033 In response, progressives encourage the sovereign state to expand in every fashion. According to How To Define The Word “Religion”, progressive institutions are infrasovereign religions calling on sovereign power in order to implement their objectives. They call on the sovereign to regulate the organization tier, through economic interventions. They also call on the sovereign to fund ideological apparatuses1b that promote the doctrine of social justice1c and popularize the necessity of possessing an identity1a (as a badge of group subsumption2a).
0034 Consequently, the progressive (situation-level) category-based nested form has the same flows as the original, traditional category-based nested form.
In the original, religion3 flows into morality2, morality2 sustains culture2, and the potential of ‘politics and economics’1underlies the dynamism of culture2. In terms of Adam Smith’s model, the first transcategorical flow corresponds to “moral sentiments” and the second transcategorical flow associates to the so-called “invisible hand”. So, the arrows go from normal context3 and potential1 towards actuality2.
In the progressive, politics3 flows into economic interventions2, economics2 transforms (traditional) morals [&] culture2. At the same time, the potential of ‘ideological apparatuses’1 undermines (traditional) morals [&] culture2 and reinforces (progressive) morals [&] culture2.
0035 Here is a picture.
Figure 12
0036 In sum, the progressive misrepresents the transcategorical flows for the traditional schema, while practicing the identical transcategorical flows as the traditional schema.
0001 Three faculty at the Universidad Santo Tomas, Columbia, publish an article with the title, “Hermeneutics and Phenomenology in Human and Social Sciences Research”, in the journal, Civilizar: Cienceas Sociales y Humanas(volume 20(38), 2020, 137 to 146, DOI: https//doi.org/10.22518/jour.ccsh./2020.1a10). I thank the authors for presenting in English.
0002 In this series of blogs, the above article serves as a testing ground for four commentaries on phenomenology, contemporary Thomism and science. The commentaries, available at smashwords and other electronic e-book vendors, follow.
Reverie on Mark Spencer’s Essay (2021) “The Many Phenomenological Reductions”
Comments on Joseph Trabbic’s Essay (2021) “Jean-Luc Marion and … First Philosophy”
Comments on Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenology”
Comments on Jack Reynolds’ Book (2018) “Phenomenology, Naturalism and Science”
0003 Testing ground?
These commentaries contain particular category-based nested forms, interscopes and judgments, constructed from (or in reverie to) the essay and book under consideration. These synthetic structures are abductions, constructed on Peircean frames.
0004 My aim is to test the diagrams and arguments developed in four commentaries on phenomenology.
Perez Vargas, Nieto Bravo and Santamaria Rodriguez offer a suitable work. Their article is composed of five sections, starting with an introduction (Part 1) and ending with a conclusion (Part 5). The three central parts address three questions.
How are phenomenology and hermeneutics used in research (Part 2)?
How does phenomenology provide an epistemological setting for research (Part 3)?
How does hermeneutics provide an epistemological setting for research (Part 4)?
0005 Yes, here is a testing ground for the commentaries listed in the previous blog.
In the conclusion (Part 5), the unspoken agenda of the authors becomes apparent.
Why are hermeneutics neglected in phenomenological inquiry?
0007 The authors offer several good reasons for why hermeneutics should be employed.
First, in history, Husserl’s project differentiates out of nineteenth century hermeneutic traditions. Both refuse to accept the triumph of positivism. So, if these two traditions have common ancestry, then why are they apparently not compatible?
Second, hermeneutics situates texts, in the same way that a reader situates an author’s writing. So, hermeneutics situate the same phenomena as phenomenology.
Third, hermeneutic practices arise out of the potential of interpretation. Phenomenological reductions arise out of the potential of identifying what the noumenon must be. Why are these not complementary processes?
0008 An answer starts with the Positivist’s judgment, initially diagrammed in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy. Judgment has a triadic structure consisting of three elements: relation, what is and what ought to be. When these elements are assigned to Peirce’s categories, the judgment becomes actionable.
0009 The relation is a positivist intellect, who has a rule, saying, “Metaphysics is not allowed.” This relation belongs to thirdness, the realm of normal contexts.
What ought to be is an empirio-schematic judgment, consisting of a disciplinary language (relation), mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be) and observations and measurements (what is). What ought to be belongs to secondness, the realm of actuality.
What is is a dyad, consisting of two contiguous elements. The elements are a noumenon, the thing itself, and its phenomena, its observable and measurable facets. The contiguity expresses a logical necessity. In natural science, a noumenon cannot be reduced to its phenomena. No arrangements of phenomena fully objectify their noumenon. I place the contiguity in brackets. A noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.
0010 Here is a picture of the Positivist’s judgment.
Figure 01
This figure does not answer test one completely. But, it is a start.
What is the latent dilemma between phenomenology and hermeneutics?
Both phenomenology and hermeneutics are able to situate the Positivist’s judgment. However, since the rule of the positivist intellect disallows metaphysics, only phenomenology is allowed to situate scientific discourse. Hermeneutics is programmatically excluded.
0016 How am I to diagram this answer?
First, the Positivist’s judgment unfolds into a content-level nested form, according to the categorical assignments of the elements. Here is a picture.
Figure 02
0017 According to Comments on Jack Reynolds’ Book (2018) “Phenomenology, Naturalism and Science”, another latent problem stands between science and phenomenology. Practicing scientists are perfectly happy to work within this content level, as the mechanical philosophers of the 17th century intend. Hands-on natural scientists3a build models2a of observations2a of phenomena1a. They take the noumenon1a for granted.
But, by the 20th century, visionary scientists lobby to situate the Positivist’s judgment with a glorified unfolding of the empirio-schematic judgment.
Edward Husserl (1859-1938) counters visionary scientists with phenomenology. Husserl’s project3b brings the actuality of phenomenological reduction2b into relation of the possibilities inherent in a return to the noumenon1b.
0018 Here is a diagram of the resulting two-level interscope. The situation-level nested form virtually situates (and emerges from) the content-level nested form.
