0161 Today, in 2025, the psychometric Positivist’s judgment looks something like this.

0162 Yeah, the figure looks busy.

But, it still reads like a judgment.

The psychometric intellect (relation, thirdness) brings disciplinary languages honed to produce capitalist and socialist models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with a noumenal overlay of what people think, that can be objectified as what people say (what is, firstness).

0163 But, I thought that what people think cannot be fully objectified as what people say.

Ah, capitalist and socialist models substituting in for what people think can be objectified as what people say.

No wonder the judgment associates to the term, “the post-truth condition”.

0164 Remember, experts in the psychometric sciences make a lot more money than the practitioners of biosemiotics, even though the psychometric sciences are, like cybernetics, closely related to biosemiotics.

0165 Allow me to discuss the entire judgment starting with the relation (thirdness).

The psychometric intellect employs two normal contexts, a positivist one_3c and expertise_3b.  Note the subscripts.  The subscripts apply to a three-level interscope developed in Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2021) “A Player’s Guide To The Post-Truth Condition” (appearing in Razie Mah’s blog in July 2024).  Subscripts 1, 2 and 3 correspond to potential₁, actuality₂ and normal context₃. Subscripts a, b and c correspond to content_a, situation_b and perspective_clevels.

The psychometric intellect has a rule.  That rule is not quite the same as the mandate of the positivist intellect.  The positivist intellect says, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”  This constitutes a ban on Aristotle’s formal and final causes.  But, what of the psychometric sciences?  What do they permit?

0166 Allow me to elaborate.

Natural sciences depend on “truncated” material and efficient causes, because they are necessary for mathematical and mechanical models.

The social sciences fudge, as one sees with the phenomenologist’s Positivist judgment.  Social scientists ignore metaphysics.  As a result, novel “mechanistic” models reduce observations and measurements of social phenomena to material and efficient causes that slyly incorporate formal and final causation.  Metaphysics slips into social science models through an open backdoor.

The cybernetic sciences admit that metaphysics is allowed (and is not ignored).  Formal and final causes may appear in mechanistic models of habit.  At the same time, “metaphysics” changes its definition to “religious”.  So, cybernetic models are “not metaphysical”, because they are “not religious”.

The psychometric sciences apply the cybernetic approach to the political sciences.

0167 The psychometric sciences constitute the situation-level of a three-level interscope.  Rather than ignoring metaphysics (like social sciences) or grudgingly accepting them (like cybernetics), the psychometric sciences play a language game.  Metaphysical mechanisms are not “metaphysical”, therefore the label cannot apply.

Ah, that makes sense.

This is about politics.

0168 Take a look at what ought to be (secondness) and what is (firstness) for the psychometric Positivist’s judgment.

Expertise involved in the psychometric sciences is geared to explaining observations and measurements of what people say in response to an interventionalist “sign”.  Whenever the “system” takes an action, that action impacts people who are not involved in… um… “the decision_2c” to take action.  Nevertheless, people_3a are effected_1a.  People_3a will talk about those impacts_1a.  Those statements_2a become the phenomena_2a that experts_2b observe and measure_1b.  Then, the experts_3b produce capitalist and socialist models_2b, couched in the language of science_3c.  These models_2b offer opportunities_1c for “the system”_3c to make another “decision”_2c.

0169 A cyberneticist may portray the above paragraph as a functional… er… dysfunctional circle.

What does this suggest?

Is there more to the functional circle than meets the eye?

0170 Take a moment and examine the first item in point 0152 and the figure in 0153.

I ask, “What is a metaphor for the receptor?”

The answer is, “What people are saying.”

Note that phenomena_2a for the psychometric sciences_2b are strictly conditioned by a noumenon (what is, firstness) consisting of content-level personal experiences_3a,1a of an interventional sign-relation.  In other words, phenomena are what people say about an interventional sign-relation.

0171 Where does this interventional sign-relation come from?

Some deciding body (technically, the relativist one_3c) makes a decision_2c based on an opportunity_1c justified by capitalist and socialist models_2b, constructed by experts_3b, on the basis of psychometric data_1b.

0172 What about this “strictly conditioned” business?

Well, people say a lot of things.  The expert is only interested in statements that (1) concern the person’s experiences_2ain regards to an interventional sign-vehicle_2c and (2) are capable of becoming data_1b for capitalist and socialist models_2b.  So, the psychometric expert_3b dismisses almost everything that anyone says and only record statements relevant to their models_2b.

0173 Now, look at the title of the above figure.

The cyberneticist does the same conditioning for observations and measurements.

The cyberneticist triggers the receptor that initiates the functional circle.

0007 Diesen builds his theory on two key terms, gemeinschaft and gesellschaft.  These terms are distinct.  These terms are separate.  Both terms rely on the capacity of speech-alone talk to apply labels.

These terms cannot exist in the world of hand-speech talk.  What is there to picture or point to in hand talk?  Oh, the most elder woman in the band can carry the rod of tradition.  The smartest young man in the band can carry the rod of complexity.  Okay, but how does hand talk image and indicate the qualifiers, “tradition” and “complexity”?  These terms cannot be articulated in hand talk, the semiotic foundation of hand-speech talk.

0008 So, what am I asking?

Does the distinction between these two terms precede the first singularity?  Is the distinction present before our current Lebenswelt?  How does the distinction express itself in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

0009 May I suggest that the distinction is built into the unity of hand-speech talk?  One language manifests in two modalities.  Here is way to appreciate hand-speech talk as it was most likely practiced by Homo sapiens before the first singularity.

0010 Hand talk pictures and points to its referents.  In this way, the relation between parole (gesture) and langue (mental processing of signification) is motivated by the semiotic qualities of icons and indexes.  Hand talk has been evolving since before the start of the Homo genus.  Hand talk becomes linguistic when the semiotic qualities of symbols start to operate beneath the surface of the iconicity and indexality of hand talk.  Language involves automatic symbolic sign processing.

Speech, in hand-speech talk, relies on the innate semiotic properties of hand talk. When speech talk is added to hand talk, it pairs with manual-brachial gestures as an adornment.  A sing-along, so to speak, which Neanderthals and Denisovans can appreciate but not perform well.  Slowly, but surely, since the advent of our species, speech talk becomes more and more independent of its manual-brachial counterpart. Spoken words start to take on a lives of their own, while remaining grounded in hand talk.  Consider the paleolithic art of the Lascaux caves and tell me that the artists were not singing as well as gesturing, as they spit paint upon the fat-lamp lit walls?

Speech does not replace hand talk.  Rather, the speech component of hand-speech talk expresses hand talk in a different register, conveying the situation in addition to word-content.  It adds a musical accompaniment.  It adds… how shall I say it?.. a variety of tones.

0011 The hand-talk component of hand-speech talk associates with content, tradition, and the physical presence of people in community. 

The speech-talk component of hand-speech talk associates with situation, adornment, and the relational presence of people in community.

0012 Consequently, certain ironies about our current Lebenswelt become obvious when I draw the following associations.

0012 At present, gesellschaft is called, “rational” and gemeinschaft is called, “irrational”.

Yet, as Diesen points out over and over again, whenever the rational orders the irrational without appreciation of the irrational, a civilization enters its autumn season.

0013 Already, the hypothesis of the first singularity enriches Diesen’s theory that civilization generates, maintains, distorts and loses balance between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft.  The distinction between hand talk and speech talk is built into the unity of hand-speech talk.  Distinction within a unity is natural to us. But, it is impossible to convey using speech-alone talk. Once both elements of a distinction are labeled, one has difficulty visualizing the unity.

For example, in Razie Mah’s May 2023 blog, Looking at Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein’s Book (2020) A Hunter Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, Diesen’s distinction is described as between culture (gemeinschaft) and consciousness (gesellschaft), rather than irrational tradition and rational bureaucracy.

0014 Why is it so easy to attach labels to two sides of a distinction, then forget the unity?

Our kind adapts to a distinction within unity, not to each separate element.

Yet, only the distinct elements are labeled using speech-alone talk.  Subsequent explicit abstraction in our current Lebenswelt takes only the separate, labeled elements into account.

The unity is no longer apparent.

0015 The hypothesis of the first singularity proposes that hand-speech talk characterizes the Lebenswelt that we evolved inand that speech-alone talk associates to our current Lebenswelt. 

Here is a picture of talk, before and after the first singularity.

0016 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the technical terms, “gemeinschaft” and “gesellschaft” could not be imaged or indicated using hand talk.  Yet, the distinction between them are built into to the nature of a dual-mode for talking.  The hand-talk component primarily delivers meaningful content, but also conveys emotion and personal presence.  The speech-talk delivers the same content as hand talk, but adds something that is um… like a message.  The message concerns intention.  Hear me as well as see me.

Hand-talk may say, “OLAF BOAR GORE”, and the utterer may appear shaken. But, the reply, in speech talk, “Olaf boar gore.” transubstantiates the content, without distortion, to a musical register, singing of an alignment, which must be accepted.  A boar has gored Olaf.  The One Who Gives, Without Us Knowing Why, is also The One Who Determines What Cannot Be Imaged Or Pointed To.  That is our “fate”.

The term, “fate”, cannot be pictured or pointed to in hand talk.  

Our kind adapts to ‘something’ in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

We label that ‘something’, “fate”, in our current Lebenswelt.

0017 Likewise, in our current Lebenswelt, the technical terms, “gemeinschaft” and “gesellschaft” seem to image and indicate their referents.  But, those references really exist in the realm of possibility, rather than actuality.  In hand talk, an actual referent precedes the manual-brachial word-gesture.  Not so in speech-alone talk, where speech-alone words are purely symbolic.  They can label anything.  But, that reference is not guaranteed.  It always remains in the realm of possibility.

0018 A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form allows me to depict the the nature of spoken words as a triadic relation.  This particular depiction stands in the introduction of Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”.  These works are available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0019 When Diesen writes these technical terms, it seems to me that, in his mind, he actualizes the possibilities.  He knows what “gemeinschaft” and “gesellschaft” mean.  And, I wonder, “Do they mean what I am suggesting here?  Are these labels attached to something that cannot be pictured and pointed to?”

Well, no… and… yes.

Gemeinschaft is not like hand-talk.  Gemeinschaft is primal, body-oriented, directly connected to emotions, working and looking at others… well, maybe gemeinschaft is like the gestural-component of hand talk.

Gesellschaft is not like speech-talk.  Gesellschaft is adornment, song-oriented, directly connected to the congregation… er, social circle, breathing and sounding in unison… well, maybe gesellschaft is like the spoken aspect to hand-speech talk.

0020 Speech-alone talk changes our Lebenswelt.

Gemeinschaft includes people who work with their hands, people who walk and eat and live together, and people who worship the same God, the God Who Gives, Without Us Knowing Why and the God Who Establishes My Fate.  This God has a spoken name.  In our current Lebenswelt, this God can turn to you or me and ask, “Who do people say that I am?”

Gesellschaft includes people who work with their… tongues?… well, how about this?… people who work with their minds, such as inventors and bureaucrats, entrepreneurs and accountants, honest brokers and lawyers, pastors and politicians, mentors and professors and on and on.  The range of specializations, both labor and social, boggle the mind.  These professionals are educated.  They are often very interested in controlling the language, because spoken words order reality.  Plus, the experts are fully capable of destroying tradition, community and solidarity on the basis of their “rational” theoretical schemes.  Today, in 2023, Russians know all about that.  Americans are just learning.

0021 Here is a picture of the actuality₂ and potential₁ for Diesen’s key terms.

0022 Diesen describes civilization as a balancing act between the potentials underlying these two spoken words.