Looking at Kirk Kanzelberger’s Essay (2020) “Reality and the Meaning of Evil” (Part 14 of 18)

0056 Kanzelberger lays out the moral theodrama.

The mystery of iniquity starts to unfold when I come up with ‘something’ objective1b, without attention to the rules of reason and the divine law1c.  At first, the objective1b sets aside the suprasubjective1c, by not admitting to the intersubjective1b.  

I decide what makes sense3c.

0057 Isn’t this the nature of concupiscence?  Why should I worry about right reason or Yahweh’s law?  I’m going to hang out with Cupid.  Cupid likes me.  Cupid agrees with me.

After a phantasm2b of deliciously-worded2a desire2b becomes habitual, self-justification3b strains towards the intersubjective1b.  For self-deception1b to become openly regarded, it must first become intersubjective.

So, I, a self-deceiver3b, search out a team that will judge2c my privation2b as virtuous and true.  Let my intersubjective2bhabit find an accommodating suprasubjectivity1c.  Yes, I may join the club.  I may join the secret society that does not pay attention to some aspect of the rule of reason or the divine law1c, then justifies the consequences2a.

In fact, our common intersubjective privation2b reflects a self-congratulating fullness of suprasubjective being2c.  Our good is obvious to anyone who is “educated”.  We all love one another and despise the uneducated morons, don’t we?

0058 We blather2a in production of our subjective agreement1a.

Are we really free to choose1b?

Or, am I forgetting something1c?

0059 There are privations in things and events2a, including speech-alone talk2a.

There are privations in phantasms2b, losing the balance between judgment2c and speech2a.

Here is a diagram for social construction.

Figure 7

What am I missing?


Looking at Kirk Kanzelberger’s Essay (2020) “Reality and the Meaning of Evil” (Part 15 of 18)

0060 In sections four and five, Kanzelberger pulls more threads through the loops of Poinsot’s scholasticism and Peirce’s postmodernism.  He does so well, that I continue in parallel, like a harmony to his melody.

0061 I turn to privation of judgment2c.

Consider an example.

0061 Crooked lawyers love the sin of omission.  They love to omit the evidence that would cause them to lose the case.  This love is justified by the doctrine of total satisfaction for the client.  The crooked lawyer does not serve justice.  The crooked lawyer serves only his client, even when his client is guilty as charged.

In the domain of morals, the doctrine of total client satisfaction stands in opposition to an oath to serve justice.  Lawyers take an oath to serve justice.  This doctrine deprives the oath of its merit.  Evil is a privation of good.

Legal theory contextualizes a lawyer’s cupidity, even as the lawyer’s exploits defy the attainment of justice.

0061 Is there a hierarchy here?

Crime is what happened3a.  A trial is what is happening3a.  Victory in court is what it means to me3b.  Someone really depraved constructs the legal process that permits it all3c.

There is a hierarchical difference between a corrupt lawyer3b, who objectifies what is happening3a in the pursuit of total victory for his client1a, and a legal theorist3c, who formulates the consensus of what is legally permissible1c.  Legal theorists3c fashion suprasubjective entities, concocting law-determining judgments2c that alter, tweak, nudge, correct and re-configure the intersubjectivity2b within which a moral agent3b signifies.  Legal theorists3c alter the machinery of justice2c.  Evil ex academia1c.

The well-educated cutting-edge legal theorist3c offers norms2c that may oppose the rule of reason and the divine law1c, just as parody opposes tragedy.  The projection of alternate meaning into words1c, such as “client interests”, “service”, “mandates” and so on, mocks the hard-won projection of true meaning1c, where the client’s interests do not outweigh justice and true justice ultimately furthers the interests of us all, including the client.

0062 Here is a picture.


Looking at Kirk Kanzelberger’s Essay (2020) “Reality and the Meaning of Evil” (Part 16 of 18)

0063 What is the catch?

Alternate legal theories2c cannot endure in the absence of the original truth of justice1c.  There are two types of immoral actors.  The practitioners of concupiscence2b, like crooked lawyers, struggle with self-justification1c.  The self-justified2c, like opportunistic legal theorists, strain to defy right reason and divine law1c.  They offer better alternatives2c.  They3coffer them2c in droves.  A multitude of alternatives2c swarm with betterness.

Kanzelberger writes, “Purposeful evil is not a matter of ignoring the moral context of courses of action, but a semiotic disorder involving… a fictive construction… that functions as… an imagined future.”

0064 You mean, like that approaching cloud of legal locusts?

Imagine a world where the rule of reason2c and the divine laws1c are partially, then totally, eclipsed by a swarm of organizational objectives2c, each declaring its own righteousness1c, each supported by its own theoretical imperatives1c and each relying on the power of the state to enforce its dictates.

Imagine a world where certain words1a are made flesh2a, and this winged flesh2a fills the air with what is happening3a, so that all things and events2a actualize theory-distorted subjectivities1a.  

Imagine a world where our phantasms2b are not grounded in truth, but in the projection of meaning2b into once truth-filled speech-alone words2a.

0065 Surely, we have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good an evil.

Like locusts.

There will be hell to pay.


Looking at Kirk Kanzelberger’s Essay (2020) “Reality and the Meaning of Evil” (Part 17 of 18)

0066 Kanzelberger writes, “Moral evil is a dark image.  It weaves a web that bewitches its author, then ensnares others.”

But, the author and the ensnared do not necessarily stand on the same level.

0067 Natural evil makes no sense.  Natural evil is privation of the subject.

Moral evil makes sense.  Moral evil is privation in phantasms.  We selectively use word-symbols deprived of their fullness.  We seek agreement1a, not wisdom1c.

Metaphysical evil defies moral sense, by willfully projecting its own relations between what is and what ought to be2c, into spoken words2a, which cannot image or indicate on their own.

0068 Imagine a nest, full of duly-appointed avian-philic crooked lawyers, passing a law decreeing the latest innovation of their premier legal theorist.  All cats are to be banished from the sovereign realm, because they are symbols of human maliciousness and cruelty.

Here is a brood worthy of Kanzelberger’s philosophical consideration.


Looking at Kirk Kanzelberger’s Essay (2020) “Reality and the Meaning of Evil” (Part 18 of 18)

0069 Kirk Kanzelberger joins Thomas Aquinas with a basic acknowledgment: Evil is a privation of a good.

He then considers natural and moral evil.

In moral evil, he locates a semiotic disorder, in addition to a privation.

He considers the nature of the sign, as formulated by Charles Peirce.

0070 He publishes his argument in a journal worthy of the reader’s support.

Reality: A Journal for Philosophical Discourse

0071 My comments are not so different.  They thread through both Peirce and Poinsot.  They pass through the two loops brought to light by John Deely.

Yet, the are different, in that they offer diagrams based on Peirce’s categories.

0072 Typically, Razie Mah’s comments are published in the smashwords website and carried by a variety of e-book vendors.

Start with A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

Add A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

That is all that is needed to introduce oneself to the interscope of social construction.

Figure 09

0073 The three-level interscope appears in the chapter on meaning in the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”.

The three-level interscope plays a role in A Primer on the Individual In Community.

The three-level interscope serves as a model of langue, in Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us: Language and Evolution.

0074 All these works are available at the smashwords website.

So concludes this look at Kanzelberger’s foray into both Aquinas and Peirce, concerning reality and the nature of privation.

Look to Reality.

God bless.


Looking at Jeff Hardin’s Essay (2019) “Biology and Theological Anthropology” (Part 12 of 15)

0063 What about the disciplines of modern psychology and sociology?

Do they labor as word-smiths, hammering out the spoken words that will address the tsunami of concupiscence-related disorders that currently plague modern society, or do they construct spoken words that thwart an evangelical’s desire to hear a sermon on Original Sin?

After all, lectures on concupiscence are not justified in a Zeitgeist where concupiscence is labeled “natural”.

0064 Surely, secular experts justify various features of our current Zeitgeist… er… regime, just like they previously (and maybe still do) labored to account for various flavors of mercantilism, various strains of fascism, and various manifestations of communism.

These ideologies all build on foundations of spoken wordsspecialized disciplinary languages fashioned by academically certified agents.

0065 Spoken words can (somehow) create the artifacts that validate spoken words.

The best way to make that happen is with sovereign power.

Spoken words can generate the righteousness underlying an organizational objective that will allow me (and my fellow travelers) to demand sovereign action.  Then, the state implements my organizational objective, thereby validating the righteousness that my spoken words advocated.

Try to get around that.

0066 An example?

May I call the current regime: “big government (il)liberalism”?

Some would call it, “the administrative state”.

Big government (il)liberalism is the latest sovereign solution to the nasty consequences of an enlightened disposition, declaring, “Concupiscence is okay, because it is natural.”

“Tolerance” is key.

Big government experts must be tolerant in order to better manage the citizen’s natural proclivities.

0067 So, the word, “liberal” has been perverted from a focus on freedom and responsibility to a fixation on nonjudgment.

The prefix, (il), celebrates this inversion, because managing citizens is the negation of serving them.

0068 Isn’t that what the word, “government”, ought to mean?

If the citizens are going to do what’s natural, then someone must clean up the mess.  What does that mean?  Someone must control the citizens, in order to ameliorate the mess that they would produce, if left to their own natures.

Er… not someone, something.  Something big.

0069 In a world where government is omnipresent, the message comes across loud and clear.

Look at your television and listen to the talking heads.

We are here to justify your concupiscence.

We are here to manage the consequences.

Please comply with current directives.


Comments on Philip Marey’s Post (2021) “Insurrection” (Part 1)

0001 The Greimas square is introduced in Comments on Gregory Sandstrom’s Essay (2013) “Peace for Evolution”, available at smashwords.  This purely relational structure is introduced as a way to visualize langue as a system of differences.  This is not the only way to visualize the word-in-mind.  But, it is useful in labeling a word as a node in a symbolic order.

0002 Here is a picture of the Greimas square.

Figure 1

0003 Philip Marey is a senior US strategist at Rabobank.  He contributes to the website, Zerohedge.  On Friday, January 8, 2021, at 18:25, Tyler Durden posts Marey’s short work, commenting on recent events.  The title consists of one word: insurrection.

0004 “Insurrection2a” should go into slot A1, as the focus of attention.  However, the situating actuality2b is causality2b.  Marey’s post considers the projection of causality into the term.  What explains the presence of insurrection2a?

0005 The first cause that Marey raises comes from academics, in particular, economists.  The primary cause of insurrection is economic.

“Economic causes” go into slot A1.

0006 In contrast, Marey offers an alternate cause: identity.  His researchers show that the US political system becomes increasingly polarized after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  This demonstration is a red herring, because polarization is already present in the 1964 presidential contest between Barry Goldwater (populist, “insurrectionist”) and Lyndon Johnson (party insider, “statist”).  The 1964 Civil Rights Act is a symptom, not a cause.

The cause is the expansion of the federal government, with its attendant religion, Big Government (il)Liberalism (BG(il)L).

0007 Perhaps, the relevant factor for the growth of identity politics in the US is to be found in the rapid expansion of state university systems in the 1950s and early 1960s.  New positions and fields of inquiry germinate a novel brand of Marxism.  Cultural Marxism exploits cultural distinctions, rather than economic.  

0008 “Identity” goes into slot B1.

Figure 02


Comments on Philip Marey’s Post (2021) “Insurrection” (Part 2)

0009 The next slot, A2, speaks against identity issues.  Since identities are not equal, then the term, “inequality”, fits.  Yet, inequality is not the same as different identities, so the contradiction is real, yet confusing.  What happens when all identities are equal?

0010 What contrasts with inequality?

Equality, of course.

0011 Here is the completed Marey square for the causes underlying insurrection.

Figure 3

0012 What characterizes the word, “insurrection2a“, as situated by causality2b by modern academics?

Economic causation (A1) is the economist’s focal point.

Identity issues (B1) contrast with economic causation (A1) and lingers slightly below consciousness.

Inequality (A2) stands in contradiction to identity (B1) and complements economic causation (A2).  Indeed, many BG(il)L academics conclude that government policies should be designed to reduce economic inequality, in order to remove fuel for insurrection.

Equality (B2) contrasts with inequality (A2), speaks against economic causality (A1) and complements identity-as-cause (B1).


Comments on Philip Marey’s Post (2021) “Insurrection” (Part 3)

0013 Here is the complete Marey square, once again.

Figure 4

0014 Do I see a problem?

Modern economists advocate for federal policies to reduce income inequality (A2) as a way to keep the peace (A1).  In other words, inequality (A2) feeds into economic causation (A1).

Does the same pattern apply to the contrasting elements (B1 and B2)?

Should modern economists also address the contribution of identity?

Or does that responsibility rest with a different suite of experts?

You know, the one’s who argue that “identity” is fully malleable, yet behave as if it is fixed.

0015 Does the proposed solution of reducing economic inequality (A2) create an unintended consequence of forcing equality (B2) onto identity (B1)?

Is there a word that describes forcing equality (B2) onto identity (B1)?

How about the term, “conformity”.

If, identity cannot be fashioned out of the creative expression of experts, then identity is not something that readily changes.  Identity is not so easily altered.

0016 What happens to the proposed solution?

Reducing economic inequality entails conformity, which explains government and private-public sector behaviors subsequent to the incident in Washington DC on January 6, 2021, the so-called “insurrection”.

The US Congress passes legislation to crack down on “domestic terrorists”, that is, people who do not conform.  They also impeach, for a second time, a figurehead that serves as the “other”, the one who does not conform.  Onto this other, they project their own crimes.

Private-public sector companies purge their platforms of people who do not conform with their corporatist stance, where the federal government handles the problem of economic inequality.  In doing so, they promote equality of identity for those remaining on their platforms.  Those who remain are complicit in purging those who do not have identities worthy of equality.  Of course, those who are unworthy of equality do not believe the experts.

0017 Marey’s square identifies two experts.  One drives the broadcast conversation, attributing social unrest (insurrection) to economic causes, particularly inequality.  The other drives a hidden conversation, where favored identities conform to the narrative.  In the latter case, experts are cultivated in order to chastise those who do not conform and to justify exclusion from public-private platforms.

0018 In short, Marey’s brief article hones in on a serious entanglement, which cannot be discussed, binding a BG(il)L public narrative (A1) with a hidden agenda concerning  identity (B1).  Forced conformity (B1, B2) is as disturbing as economic inequality (A1, A2).


Saturn-Jupiter Conjunction in Aquarius (Part 1)

0001 Does astrology begin with the first singularity?

The first singularity potentiates civilization, by opening the door to unconstrained labor and social specialization.

Astrologists exemplify a certain type of specialization.

0002 How does astrology work?

Astrology offers a primary causality, associated to the celestial realm, as a way to appreciate the secondary causality of our mundane realm.

0003 In sum, astrology provides context and potential to events that we experience in the here and now.

Figure 01

0004 Yes, this structure parallels the primary and secondary causalities appearing in scholastic philosophy.Primary and secondary causes are discussed in Comments on Fr. Thomas White’s Essay (2019) “Thomism for the New Evangelization”.