09/9/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 6)

0040 Harvey Winerock is the poster boy of the marxist endgame.

Here is a character at home with the cruelty of the organization tierB, where asymmetric relations among individuals is contiguous with systemic oppression.  Harvey stands as a gatekeeper for the studios of Hollywood.  He is a gargoyle.  Actresses and actors must speak the proper slogans2a and submit to the proper humiliations1b in order to pass into the bewitched enclave where every asymmetric relation stinks of systemic exploitation.  Welcome to an institution filled with marxists.

0041 Harvey lives the marxist dream.

Until, of course, he does not.

Why?

Others can play the game.  The organization tierB changes, every so slightly.  The identification of oppressor and oppressed2c shifts out of his favor.  Harvey and the actress point fingers in a house of mirrors.

0042 Hazony writes of marxism as the end of democracy.

It is really the end of sanity.

Why do French liberals (aka, “old time democrats”) and American liberals (aka, “tea party republicans”) find common cause in 2020?

They both gaze into the house of mirrors that is postmodern modernism.

There is one encouraging feature about the current scene.  American academics, hatching the mantis eggs of the Frankfurt school, succinctly articulate their ever-expanding agendas.  Hazony comes close to appreciating the paradox, where any asymmetric relation within the organization tierB may be interpreted as systemic oppression2c.  If this actuality2c is true and if the organization tierB is full of asymmetric relations (not just full, but bursting with them), then systemic oppression2c is everywhere, except for once-liberal institutions under the control of marxists2b.

0043 What a joke.

InstitutionscC contextualize organizationsB.  InstitutionscC justify organizationsB on the basis of righteousness2a.  Marxists act as if they are institutionscC without the trappings of an organizationB.  Yet, organized they are.  They demand sovereign power3b in order to achieve the organizational goals2b that actualize their slogans2a.  Harvey Winerock and the movie actress both exemplify the exceptional character of marxists.  They are exempt from the marxist critique2c because they self-identify as marxists.

Harvey is promoted by other marxists within the studio system, just as homosexual priests promote their confreres, actresses promote their marxist causes, and public school teachers protest for better wages, in order to get better working conditions.  No, nobody here engages in asymmetric relations that characterize the organization tierB.  Instead, the avatars of the “be little men” movement say that men must become aware how systemic oppression is built into their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

No, marxists cannot see their reflections in the mirror of the world3a, because their illumination2c is supposed to be reflected in the mirror of the world3a.  They see their illuminance2c, not themselves, in their slogans2a.

 0044 Academic postmodern marxist disciplines are inquiries into how this or that asymmetric relation in the organization tierB somehow causes (is contiguous with) a relation between oppressor and oppressed2c.   Marxists destroy once-liberal civic institutions from within, simply by identifying and promoting others who are self-identified victims (and extollers2a) of particular types of systemic oppression2c.  Indeed, their organizational objectives2b force others into submitting1b to slogans2a that assign guilt for participation in systemic oppression1a.

0045 Ultimately, sovereign power3b is required in order to promulgate their organizational objectives2b.  And, this is the ultimatum that Hazony fears.  What happens when marxists gain control of the levers of state power?

Yoram Hazony’s article is an intimation of what will be exposed when conservative, Christian and nationalist citizens challenge Big Government (il)Liberalism, the hidden and the complete perversion of the Enlightenment tradition.

0046  Five related works are available at www.smashwords.com.

A Primer on the Category Based Nested Form

A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

How To Define the Word “Religion”

A Primer on the Family

A Primer on the Organization Tier (First and Second)

09/8/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 5)

0031 From the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion“, one finds that there are three tiers to the presence underlying the word, “religion”.

They are the societyC, organizationB and the individual in communityA.

The society tierC puts the organization tierB into perspective.  The organization tierB emerges from (and situates) the individual in communityA.

Each tier is diagrammed as a three-level interscope.

0032 So, let me talk business.

When an young individual in communityA enters the organization tierB, by going to work, “he” engages a number of asymmetric relations.

How does a young personA navigate these relationsB?

Obviously, the individual in communityA relies on what “he” has been taught.

0033 American classical liberals teach that the individual should have a dream2a.

French classical liberals instruct the individual with tropes about equality, freedom and human brotherhood2a.  These expectations2a encourage asymmetric business relations to be “win-win”.

Marxist (il)liberals indoctrinate slogans raising awareness of how asymmetric relations between individuals somehow cause (are contiguous with) systemic oppression2a.

0034 Liberalism offers a dream.  Marxism offers a nightmare.  Choose your false consciousness.

0035 Hazony describes the pairing as a dance.  In this dance, one party negates the other.  Thus, the dance is more like the mating ritual between the male and the female praying mantis.  The dance ends when liberalism gets devoured as food for the fertilized egg sacs of marxism.  Afterwards, an all-consuming fecund marxism dies from her own contradictions, in the winter of her totalizing reign.

0036 Why do I say this?

Compare the perspective-level actualities2c for American enlightenment and postmodern marxism.

Figure 10

0037 When the American enlightenment is reflected in the mirror of the world3a, slogans2a call for individuation1b.  The asymmetric relations characterizing the organization tier are depicted as opportunities and hazards for fashioning a dream2a based on one’s talents and dispositions1a.  When confronted with oppressors, the individual should learn how to detect, avoid and escape.  When confronted with mentors, the individual should figure ways to flourish.

0038 Indeed, in America, opportunities1b for success are manifold, ask any movie actress2b promoted by the notorious Harvey Winerock, who turns out to be a postmodern marxist2a,b,c.

In contrast, millions of less-promoted actresses now live in movies of their own, the comedies and tragedies of life in the family2aB, the traditional portal to the organization tierB.  For every one actress who reaches an accommodation2b with Harvey, by playing through his disgusting game1b, millions of women discover that the asymmetric relations inherent in the family realize2b their dreams2a.

Who should be teaching whom?

Surely, a Hollywood actress stands in asymmetric relation to innumerable mothers, among others.

So, what does she preach?

Marxist slogans2a?

Why?

In order to attain her dream2b, she is required to become so oppressed2c that she cannot recognize herself as an oppressor2c.  She lives out the scientific truth of marxism2c. She submits1b and receives both rewards and marxist illumination2b.

0039 Why are so many civic institutions of American liberalism now controlled by marxists?

The marxist perspective translates the asymmetric relations of the organization tierB into the languages of oppressor and oppressed.  Mirroring this perspective2c, slogans2a emerge from a righteousness1a that demands submission of the oppressors1b.  One party in all asymmetric relationsB is already guilty of oppression1a on the basis of participation in the system.  That party cannot be the marxist, who represents the oppressed.

By definition, the oppressed2c, such as Harvey Winerock and the Hollywood actress, are exempt because each is a marxist occupying a powerful position in a once civic, now marxist, institution.  Each, in his and her own way, is a victim in an asymmetric relation with a more powerful individual.

For the actress, that more powerful individual is Harvey.

For Harvey, that more powerful individual is the one who bought his soul.

09/7/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 4)

0025 Hazony points to the obvious.  Humans evolve in social circles where there are many relationships between a more powerful individual and a less powerful one, starting with mom, dad and their children.  The organizational structure of this foundational institution is discussed in A Primer on the Family.

0026 The family starts in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  So, there is more.

We must add the unconstrained social and labor specializations that characterize our current Lebenswelt.

Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0027 The organizational structures of civilizationB is a topic worthy of consideration.  The institutionaC and sovereignbClevels of the society tierC contextualize the organization tierB.  The organization tierB encompasses productionaB, exchangebB and assessmentcB.  The organization tierB emerges from (and situates) the individual in communityA.

Too bad inquiry into the organization tierB is yet to be initiated.

Advancements are blocked by marxist theory, in its various guises.  Marxist theory offers a “scientific” model that forecloses intellectual exploration of the organizations tierB.

0028 The model goes like this:

The diverse relations between more powerful and less powerful individuals in the organization tierB are equivalent to the relation between oppressors and oppressed.

The two are more than equivalent.  They are contiguous.

Figure 8

0029 What does contiguity imply?

Peirce’s category of secondness consists of two contiguous real elements.  The contiguity is not a real element, it is the substance that causally binds the two real elements.  The marxist substance carries the character of equivalence, but that is not enough.  Ask any marxist.  The causality is systemic.

Anyone who disagrees speaks with what Jacques Lacan callsthe master’s discourse.  Here is the oppressor.

Anyone who agrees speaks, to me3b, in discourses that Lacan labels, hysteric (for some) and scientific (for others).  For the most part, I find it hard to tell the difference.  I suppose the label depends on the slogan2a.   Each slogan2a addresses the one who asks what does this mean to me3b.

“Me3b” is a placeholder, virtually situating the person’s reflection3b in the marxist mirror of the world3a.

0030 Oppressed? Or oppressor?  Find a location within the abundance of asymmetric relations contained within the organization tierB.

Here is a diagram of the marxist interscope, as far as this discussion sees.

09/5/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 3)

0014 Part 3 concerns the attractions and power of marxism.

The individual is attracted to classical liberalism.

The discontented are attracted to marxist (il)liberalism.

The current iteration of marxist religion is Big Government (il)Liberalism (BG(il)L).

0015 What do marxists have that liberals do not?

Here is a picture of the marxist’s sensible construction

Figure 6

0016 Where is the perspective levelc?

Is it too horrible to view?

The Enlightenment perspective-level actuality (equality, freedom and fraternity2c) addresses three important aspects of human sociality in our current Lebenswelt.

0017 According to Marx, these are not sufficient.

What else is required?

First (A), people form cohesive classes or groups.  May I call them, “institutions”?  Second (B) these classes or groups invariably oppress and exploit one another, culminating in one (the state) enforcing order.  Third (C), the state eventually functions as an instrument of the oppressing class.

0018 Weirdly, Marx’s insight is captured in the chapter on presence in the masterwork, How To Define The Word, “Religion”.   The three elements appear in the institution (content) and sovereign (situation) levels of the societyC tier.

Figure 7

0019 In theory, Enlightenment liberalism achieves order1b, while using the fewest official acts and decrees2b.  It cultivates personal commitments2a to life (equality), liberty (freedom) and the pursuit of happiness (fraternity)2c.  Civic culture consists of various fraternal institutions3a, some Christian (“religious”) and some not Christian (“not religious”)1a, pursuing diverse objectives2a.

Righteousness1a does not arise from within Enlightenment liberalism.  Rather, Enlightenment liberalism is conducive to a wide variety of inspirations.  Liberal righteousness1a demands that each individual pursues opportunities1b offered by competing civic institutions3a according to their talents and dispositions1a.

0020 In contrast, the Marxist vision proposes that a number of otherwise civic institutions3a (A) will pursue organizational objectives2a (B) that require official acts and decrees2b for their implementation1b (C).

0021 Hazony offers examples.

Ideally, public education should be implemented through a general decree stating that all individuals over a certain age must pass a civic exam in order to gain citizenship.  The exam would be offered by (not one but) a suite of competing voluntary institutions, each operating with transparency due to competition.  Education may be subsidized by vouchers to parents.

In practice, modern education engages unionized teachers (A) who demand a monopoly over “public” instruction and examination, as well as a host of other organizational objectives (B), that require state enforcement through official decrees (C).

In sum, Big Government (il)Liberal education exemplifies the Marxist vision.

0022 Hazony offers other examples.  But, the point is clear.  Marxist righteousness1a sensibly constructs organizational objectives2b, that, on one hand, arise from directly from the potential of submission by a target (individuals or institutions)1b, and, on the other hand, are virtually situated by official acts and decrees2b in the sensible construction of societyC.

0023 One reason why Marxist ideas are so attractive is that they promote a righteousness1a that both demands submission from others1b and entangles sovereign power3b.

The task of identifying like-minded individuals is relatively easy, since conservatives, Christians, nationalists and (above all) enlightened liberals espouse other styles of righteousness1a.  All institutions in a modern civic society are vulnerable to infiltration by marxists.

In sum, marxists can easily identify one another, selectively promote one another, and humiliate perceived competition within each institution.  Those who are not marxist within each institution are increasingly expected to toe the party line and to promote entanglements with sovereign power.

0024 Amazingly, Enlightenment liberals find themselves dispossessed by the very institutions that they built.

Does this imply that the marxists hold a perspective-level actuality2c that (if you will excuse the pun) trumps equality, freedom and fraternity2c?

Hazony does not directly raise this question.

He does so, indirectly.

He discusses the flaws that make marxism fatal.

09/4/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 2)

0005 How should I define the righteousness of the classical liberal?

The classical liberal entertains a perspectivec that occludes the foundational world of Christianity.  The classical liberal extols3c equality, freedom and fraternity2c.  These2c are the means to human fulfillment1c.

The American Bill of Rights declares life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Equality is the right to life and justice.  Freedom is the liberty to make one’s own choices.  Fraternity involves private property.  One must own the possessions that one shares with family, friends, teammates and other social circles.  Otherwise, one usurps.

0006 The classic liberal perspective-level nested form looks like this.

Figure 2

0007 Surely, this perspectivec level does not contextualize marxist contenta and situationb levels.

Why?

Hazony speaks of two steps.  In the first step, the Enlightenment covers up Christianity.  In the second step, Marxism occludes the Enlightenment.

So, let me start at the first step.

Christian social virtues describe what God reveals about human sociality.  Saint Paul discusses equality in his letters. Christ frees humans from the chains of original sin.  The body of Christ, the Church, possesses an object that brings all into relation.  Finally, all these actualities emerge from the potential that a human can attain eternal life with God, the ultimate fulfillment.

The Enlightenment makes these virtues immanent.

0008 What does this immanence entail?

How does the Enlightenment perspective play into situation and content levels?

0009 First, let me simply slide the normal contexts of the situationb and contenta levels of the marxist sensible construction underneath the Enlightenment perspectivec level.  Here is the resulting three-level interscope, a relational structure discussed in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

Figure 3

0010 Second, I fill in the blanks.

The content level actuality2a turns extols3c into a dream2a, an object associating with an individual’s future, choices and companions. The individual’s dream2a arises from talents and dispositions1a.

What possibility1b situates the individual’s dream2a?

Of course, there must be opportunity1b.

Then, with hard work and luck, one realizes2b that dream2a.

0011 This sounds so American.  Here is the interscope.

Figure 4

0012 The French Enlightenment, on the other hand, rots as it ripens.  Unlike eighteenth-century America, France is loaded with god-defying intellectuals, salon-attending little royals and cunning lawyers, who dream of running political affairs without the burden of king and church. They have talents and dispositions1a toward promoting organizational objectives2bbased on reason1b.  Reason1b gives opportunity to righteousness1a.  As such, their dreams2b,2a are tautological.

The Marxist frame, perceptively delineated by Hazony, develops in situ within French Enlightenment civilization.  The sarcastic godless intellectuals, self-absorbed gossip-bearing little nobles and the reason-worshipping lawyers consider themselves to oppressed by the oppressors, king and church.  King and church express a false consciousness.  The system works for them, not everyone else, especially the discontented.  Revolution will reconstitute society and the inherent ironies of the present regime will disappear.

0013 Here is a diagram.

Figure 5
09/3/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 1)

0001 Yoram Hazony publishes a six part opinion piece, concerning the relation between Enlightenment traditions and Marxism. on August 16, 2020, in the Quillette website (http://vlt.tc/41uo).  The essay is eye-catching for its portrayal of the capture of liberal institutions by marxists (now, with a small “m”) during the past three-score years.  Marx is back in a big way.

0002 In the prior blog, discussing the Be Little Men movement, two actualities come to the fore.  The first is a slogan2a, based on righteousness1a, that addresses the mirror of the world3a.  The second is an organizational objective2b, telling what the slogan means to the marxist3b.  This objectorg2b arises from the possibility of submission1b.  Submission1bvirtually situates (and emerges from) marxist righteousness1a.

0003 Here is a picture of the two-level interscope, composed of two nested forms, following the style in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

0004 According to Hazony, marxists have infiltrated American media companies, universities, government bureaucracies, courts, so-called profits, so-called non-profits and churches.  Classical liberals have lost control of their own institutions. Classical liberals do not have the intellectual or spiritual resources to combat the threat.

09/2/20

The Two Actualities of the “Be Little Men” Movement

0001 Sociology is often a curious field of inquiry. In the mirror of the world3, there is only one Be Little Men movement (blm).  Blm is a slogan2.  No substitutions to these words are allowed.  The potential1 underlying the slogan2 is fixed on the only possibility among a sea of possible meanings, presences and messages.  That potential is the possibility of marxist righteousness1.

Here is a picture of a triadic relation, as introduced in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

Figure 1

0002 What is marxist righteousness1?

Marx is a “communist” who names his enemy, the “capitalist”.

The specter of “capitalism”?

Das Kapital?

The root word for “capital” is “head”.

Wrap your cap around that.

0003 Marxist righteousness1 relies on the emptiness of spoken words.  A speech-alone word is merely a placeholder in a system of differences.  Meaning, presence and message must be projected into each spoken word.  The marxist reserves the right to project that meaning, presence and message.

Allow no substitutes.

Substitutions squander the purity of the projection.

0004 What does this mean to me3?

This is what the target of a marxist slogan never asks.

The slogan isolates the guilty.

Originally, the capitalist is the one upon which marxist righteousness descends.  The target is guilty, with no option of managing the label, except through submission1.  Indeed, the organizational objective2 is to manifest submission1.

Now, other labels serve as slogans2a.

This second nested form situates the first nested form, as described in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

Figure 2

0005 There are two blms.  On the content level, blm is a slogan2a emerging from (and situating) righteousness1a.  On the situation level, blm manifests organizational objectives2b that actualize the potential of submission1b, thus increasing the wealth, power and overall prowess3b of those reflecting the mirror of the world3a.

According to rumors, advertisers in saavy suites say that executive suits of major corporations donate large sums1b to an organization2b whose namesake is the slogan2a.  Other, less well-endowed targets are suited up as scapegoats, following the historic and literary patterns noted by Rene Girard.  Marxist righteousness projects a lack, held within the accuser, upon a scapegoat, the target.

0006 Yes, by definition1a, certain types can never submit1b.  These characters are magically gifted with the power to create the lack that they are accused of1a as well as the standing to fill that lack with their own… shall I say?.. capitals1b.

0007 Is marxism a modern version of an ancient religion?

Surely, early civilizations sacrifice humans to their gods.

Remember the old adage?

A capitalist will sell the communist the rope to hang himself.

The joke works as long as the target does not comprehend the intent of the customer.

Why would anyone hang the fellow who sold “him” some rope?

Marxist righteousness calls the fellow, a “capitalist”.

The seller’s hanging manifests the realness of the marxist’s organizational objectives1b.

In the same way, ritual sacrifice validates the realness of ancient deities.

0008 What else does this imply?

The target is not privy to what does this mean to me3b.  The deadly earnestness of marxist submission1b cannot be appreciated from the outside.  The above two-level interscope is sensible only from the inside.  The insider holds the secret knowledge3a that secures the slogan’s single possible meaning, presence and message1a.

If a gnostic path blossoms into a social movement, such as the be little men movement, then today’s secular academic sociologists include the topic in their regional and global meetings, showcasing how they are in tune with the emerging secret knowledge.  They can explain it.  They can write books about it.  They can explore its righteousness1a, explicate its slogans2a, develop pathways for submission1b and extol its authority2b.  They can conduct surveys in order to show how a slogan has struck a cord in social consciousness3a.  They can tell all how the insider feels3b.

0009 Modern sociology is such a curious field of inquiry.  It poses as a mirror3a of the worldc.  As such, it constructs its own sensible approach, in the same fashion as marxist religions.

0010  Five related works are available at www.smashwords.com.

A Primer on the Category Based Nested Form

A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

How To Define the Word “Religion”

Comments on Eric Santner’s Book (2016) “The Weight of All Flesh”

Comments on Peter Burfeind’s Book (2014) Gnostic America

06/28/20

Comments on Robert Pennock’s Essay (2009) “…the Difference between Science and Religion?” (Epilogue 2)

0058 The other way to game the system comes from the thousand points of light, floating where the leviathan swims, in the heights of the celestial waters.  On the surface, we humble folk see these points of illumination self-identify as “not religious”.  So, we think that they are not Christian, Jewish or Islamic factions.

Ah, but the meaning of the word “religion” changes.

Is the term still limited to the above-mentioned factions?

Must we continue the charade?

The same goes for the term, “metaphysics”.

Does this term only apply to Christian, Jewish or Islamic theologies?

Or, does the term also apply to the righteousness1aC underlying Big Government (il)Liberal agendas2aC?

0059 If Big Government (il)Liberal institutions (BG(il)L) self-identify as “not religious”, then they must be compatible with science.  Their organizational objectives may be taught in public schools, especially when their methodology takes on the style of the empirio-schematic judgment and ends up establishing a noumenon, corresponding to what the phenomena add up to.

Now, here comes a really big sentence.

While ID3a observes and measures1a phenomena1b and demonstrates that the noumenon1b is greater than what available mechanical and mathematical models2a predict, BG(il)L institutions3a rely on ideologically informed models2a applied to selected observations and measurements1a in order to establish phenomena1a that guarantee the relevance of their situation-level empirio-schematic judgment2b.

In effect, certain phenomena1b may be deemed to be so salient that a noumenon1b becomes manifest, thereby warranting the attention of a naturalist intellect3b and establishing the legitimacy of a discipline’s language, models and observations2b.

Phenomena1b may be manufactured in order to project realness into the corresponding noumenon1b.  This is the work of the experts in state education.

0060 In order to fully appreciate what comes next, the reader may consider the masterwork, How to Define the Word “Religion” (available at smashwords), especially the chapter on presence.

How do BG(il)L institutions, while self-identifying as “not religious”, establish their doctrines in public schools?  How do “not religious” institutions establish a state religion?

Clearly, they game Michael Ruse’s demarcation criteria.  They pretend to be a science by mimicking the methodology (just like ID does).  But, they do not get caught (like ID gets caught).

Then, they game Robert Pennock’s demarcation criteria, by self-identifying as “not religious”. Therefore, they not subject to scrutiny when they violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

0061 So how are BG(il)L institutions religious?

There are two types of religion, based on two distinctly different objects in the society tierC.  One2cC is assumed3cC.  This relational object2cC builds civilizations or destroys them.  The other2aC belongs to institutions3aC.  Organizational objects2aC emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness1aC.

Organizational objects2aC are religious.

0062 Only two associations are required (S and T).

The organizational objective2aC of a “not religious” BG(il)L institution3aC goes with a noumenon1b (S), which is where metaphysics is quietly stuffed according to the dictates of the naturalist intellect3b.

By focusing on observations and measurements2a that contribute to the feeling that the corresponding phenomena1b are real, these institutions generate the impression of a metaphysics-filled noumenon1b, the thing itself, which may take on a life of its own.  Both apparent phenomena1b and their spectral noumenon1b support a situation-level actuality2b that reifies the entire content levela.

Righteousness1aC associates with the entire content level of methodologicala naturalism(T).

Scientific method is the foundation of BG(il)L belief.

Righteousness mimics the empirio-schematic judgment by promoting a disciplinary language3a, ideologically-informed mechanical models2a and selective observations and measurements1a.  The content-level nested forma establishes the realness of the situation-level actuality2a, by establishing irrefutable phenomena1b.  The realness of the situation-level actuality2a, plus the unassailable status of the phenomena1b, establish an undeniable noumenon1b, containing a metaphysically informed BG(il)L organizational objective2aC.

In 1981, The Creation Science is attacked by the leviathan for a crude imitation of what BG(il)L institutions have been doing for over two decades.  In 2005, The Intelligent Design is mauled for a more sophisiticated imitation.  Our world is indeed upside down.

Say what?  

In each BG(il)L institution, observations and measurements1a are selected to support mechanistic and ideological models2a and guide the believer’s definition of words3a.  The “not religious” believer then accepts the realness of the corresponding phenomena1b and the realness of the corresponding noumenon1b.

Remember, the phenomena1b carry the imprint of selective observations1a, righteousness-inspired models2a and virtue-signaling disciplinary language3a.  These elementsa are inherently meta- (crossing out of) -physical (material and instrumental causality), even though couched in the methodology of science.

Remember, the noumenon1b carries a BG(il)L organizational objective2aC, which is inherently religious.

In sum, the veracity of a BG(il)L institution’s empirio-schematic judgment2b is supported by the righteousness of the content-level’s disciplinary language3a, models2a and observations1a.  The BG(il)L’s phenomena1b cannot be refuted. The BG(il)L’s noumenon1b is undeniable.  Those who question the veracity of the institution’s normal context3a, actualities2aand potentials1a must be regarded as not properly informed.  They are not righteous1aC.

What are public schools supposed to do?

Properly inform students?

Or indoctrinate them with “not religious” values?

0063 Here is diagram of how BG(il)L institutions game the system.

Figure 09

0064 Surely, the Christians have given the leviathan enough rope.  Pull the creature in and let these heavenly waters descend.  Perhaps, the celestial ocean of BG(il)L will fall on its own.  Can a sea of government liquidity levitate on borrowed and printed money?  How long can this inversion continue?

Can it reign for a thousand years?

Pennock’s essay is intended to clarify the 2005 Kitzmiller case and to provide a rule of thumb to distinguish science and religion.  These comments show how Pennock’s rule can be gamed.  It was gamed before his participation in the debate.  It is being gamed after.

0065 What is the problem?

Is methodical naturalism crowding Christianity from the public square?

Or, is methodological naturalism allowing “not religious” BG(il)L doctrines into the public square?

Clearly, both dynamics are at play.

0066 I thank Robert Pennock for his challenging article.

06/27/20

Comments on Robert Pennock’s Essay (2009) “…the Difference between Science and Religion?” (Epilogue 1)

0052 The world is inverted.  Above us stands the celestial ocean of Big Government (il)Liberalism (BG(il)L).  Below ushovers an atmosphere where Christianity, Judaism and Islam are designated “religions”, and therefore excluded, by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, from public (that is, state) institutions, especially schools.  Their sublimation begins during the 1960s.

Die-hard Christians respond by generating something that appears to be science.  Creation science makes claims about natural events verifying Biblical witness.

In 1981, the leviathan of BG(il)L public education sweeps down to the surface and attacks the little ship, The Creation Science, and ruins its effectiveness.  Creation Science does not properly follow style of the empirio-schematic judgment.  The McLean case distinguishes between science and religion on the basis of methodology.

0054 The captain of the ship lost one leg.  But, he fashions a new one in the style of the empirio-schematic judgment.  He rebuilds the ship, branding it The Intelligent Design.

In 2005, the leviathan is again provoked to come down through the celestial waters and attack the ship.  The ship has a lance that pierces the skin of the leviathan.  The Intelligent Design forces experts, such as Pennock, to come up with a demarcation that is situational.  Intelligent Design does not follow the rule of the naturalist intellect.  That rule says, “No metaphysics.”

In addition, the naturalist’s rule is not based on anything physical.  So, the rule must be metaphysical.

0055 These comments reveal how the rule plays out.  Metaphysics must be hidden within the presence of the thing itself, the noumenon1b, which is contiguous with those properties that can be observed and measured, the phenomena1b.  The [contiguity] mirrors the rule.  A noumenon1b [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena1b.

Here is how that looks.

Figure 07

0056 What does The Intelligent Design do that the Creation Science does not?

The Intelligent Design is equipped with an empirio-schematic judgment that observes and measures phenomena that do not fully add up to their noumenon, the thing itself.  ID favors things that are very complicated, such as the bacteria’s flagellum or the human immune system, where many components are observed and measured1a.  Their corresponding phenomena1b can never explain the thing itself: the bacteria swims and the human recovers from an illness.  The models2aare never sufficient.  The whole is so much greater than the parts.  The investigator experiences awe.  The investigator is struck by a noumenon, but cannot say so, since “religion” is banished from disciplinary language.

The empirio-schematic judgment2b is supposed to virtually emerge from (and situate) mechanical and mathematical models2a.  Methodologicala naturalismb has a redundancy.  The situation-level actuality2b re-capitulates the content-level nested forma.  The situation-level actuality2b completes the content-level nested forma.  There should be no surplus2b, because any surplus2b flows into something1b that cannot be objectified as phenomena1b.  This something1b is where metaphysics is hidden, according to the dictates of the naturalist intellect3b.  ID aims to show that the noumenon1b has a lifec of its own, a life1c that his hidden by the rule of the naturalist intellect3b on the order of someone or something upstairs2c.

Here is how that looks.

Figure 08

0057 That’s one way to game Pennock’s system.In 2005, the celestial leviathan mauls, but does not destroy the ship, The Intelligent Design.  Plus, the leviathan takes a lance into its flank.  The lance reveals the barbed fact that the leviathan depends on a metaphysical rule, stating that metaphysics is not allowed in scienceThe rope tied to the lance is long.  Perhaps, 14 years long.  Cheers.

06/26/20

Comments on Robert Pennock’s Essay (2009) “…the Difference between Science and Religion?” (Part 6)

0035 In the sixth section of Robert Pennock’s Essay, titled “Can’t Philosophers Tell the Difference between Science and Religion?: Demarcation Revisited”, the author speculates why Larry Laudan fails to see a demarcation between science and religion.  After all, it is so easy to see.  Look at the rules.

Religion inspires the nautical mission of The Intelligent Design, in an inverted world, where Big Government (il)Liberalism commands the waters above and the world of tradition sublimates into the atmosphere below.  The ocean is our ceiling.  The air is our floor.

A thousand points of light shine in the immense celestial ocean.  Each illumination is immersed in its own righteousness.  A leviathan swims high in these heavenly, dense, waters.  This leviathan addresses the issue of public education.  The states require it.  The states pay for it.  The states perform it.  It works even as Big Government (il)Liberalism turns the ocean into the sky.  How it weighs upon us.

The U.S. Constitution says that the government shall not establish a religion.  So, public education may teach science, which is not “religious”, but not Creation Science nor Intelligent Design, which are religious.

Here, “religion” means “a Christian faction”.

Pennock writes in triumph.

0036 Section 6 of Pennock’s essay diagnoses and rehabilitates Laudan.

Why does Laudan fail at recognizing the distinction between science and religion?

Pennock offers four reasons (S-V).

0037 First (S), Laudan does not take the creationist’s claims seriously.  Creationists hold epistemological assumptions unfamiliar to science.

What does this mean?

The crew of The Creation Science promotes bad method.  They do not adhere to the empirio-schematic judgment, because their disciplinary language includes metaphysics (that is, Christian theology).

0038 Second (T), Laudan does not frame the demarcation problem properly.  We should not expect a “strict” line, based on criteria about methods.

To me, this means that the two-level interscope confuses.  There are always two issues, one related to situation and one related to content.  Here, the content level concerns scientific practice (that is, method).  The situation level pertains to the Naturalist’s judgment (that includes, “no metaphysics”).

0039 Third (U), Laudan is influenced by Karl Popper’s claims that falsification defines scientific methodology.

Once again, the content level is the focus of attention.

0040 Fourth (V), the 2005 Kitzmiller decision does not appeal to falsification as demarcation criteria.  Rather, it appeals to the very issue that Laudan seems to miss:  The naturalist intellect3b rules out metaphysics.

Pennock wonders, more or less, “What should we think about philosophers (such as Laudan), if they cannot distinguish between science and sectarian religion posing as science?”

I suspect both Pennock and his foil, Laudan, recognize the difference.

The question is, “What makes the difference real?”

Laudan says that the distinction is not real, because we cannot ascertain clear and valid demarcation criteria.

Well, he may not really say that.  Pennock’s foil says that.

0041 The real difference concerns following the rules.  Naturalism rules metaphysics out.  Religion rules metaphysics in.  The demarcation should express that fact that the rule of “no metaphysics” applies to naturalism but not Christian factions… I mean to say… “religion”.

To me, the issue shifts from methods to something more ambiguous.  How does one decide whether the naturalist intellect’s rule is valid or not?  The decision cannot be based on physics.  The decision must be based on metaphysics.

The rule, “no metaphysics”, must ultimately be based on metaphysics.

0042 That means that free will enters the picture.

Pennock takes the naturalist rule at face value.  Naturalism rules out metaphysics.  Therefore, it is “not religious”.  Does this mean that any institution that self-identifies as “not religious” can also say that it is “scientific”?  Can this rule be gamed?

After all, this is precisely the issue in both 1981 McLean and 2005 Kitzmiller contests.  Creation science blatantly tries to game the rule.  Later, Intelligent Design (ID) games the rule in a much more sophisticated style. ID mimics the empirio-schematic judgment, occupying the content-level, while (sneakily) violating the naturalist’s rule of “no metaphysics”.

ID’s logic is easy to see.  If an evolved attribute, such as a bacteria’s flagellum, is not possible, then a miracle must have occurred.  A “mythical being” must have intervened.

0043 What does this “mythical being” do?

The mythical being does not cobble together phenomena.  The mythical being creates a noumenon, the thing itself.

The merit to ID can thus be articulated, by saying, “God creates a noumenon and the scientists observe and measure its phenomena.  Sometimes, phenomena do not fully account for their noumenon.  This is the case for the bacteria’s flagellum and other biological structures.”

0044 Here is a picture of that statement.

Figure 06

0045 What potentiates the naturalist intellect3b?

The dyad, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena1b, does.  This dyad belongs to what is1b in the Naturalist’s judgment.  This element is imbued with firstness, because phenomena are defined by their potential1b to be observed and measured1a and a noumenon1b has the potential1b of being discussed3a by the naturalist intellect3b.

The two components of this dyad tie into the content-level nested form of methodology.  A noumenon1b stands as the presence that is referred to in disciplinary language3a.  Its phenomena1b virtually (meaning, “in virtue”) emerges from and situates observations and measurements1a.  The contiguity1b is [cannot be objectified as].

0047 What does this imply?

The contiguity between a noumenon and its phenomena1b cannot be explained by physics.

But, the naturalist intellect3b has a rule that says, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”

0048 Hmmm. Have I located the metaphysical commitment within the Naturalist’s judgment?

The naturalist intellect3b assigns the metaphysical aspect of creation to the noumenon1b, which cannot be objectified as its phenomena1b.  So, disciplinary language3a assumes the presence of the thing itself, the noumenon1b, but dares not speak of it, for fear of violating the rule of “no metaphysics”3b.

Physics cannot justify the rule of the naturalist intellect.  So, it must be metaphysical.

Also, the source of this commitment comes from the empty perspective levelc.

0049 The naturalist3b hides the source2c of its metaphysical rule of “no metaphysics”.

What does this imply?

The system can be gamed.

0050 How?

We can cobble together phenomena in a manner that will tempt us into believing that a noumenon exists.

For example, in the 19th century, various physical phenomena point to a noumenon, which scientists label “the ether”.  The ether transports force through vacuum.  As it turns out, the ether is completely imaginary.  It is a mythical being.

0051 If science is “not religious”, then can a “not religious” religion game Pennock’s criteria, not from the side of Christianity, Judaism and Islam (which cannot shake the designation, “religious”), but from the side of the Big Government (il)Liberalism (where self-identification as “not religious” is common)?