0028 State and local initiatives3c contextualize a perspective-level actuality2c that manifests the potential of educational freedom1c.
0029 What is freedom1c and how is it different from (il)liberalism1c?
(Il)liberalism1c maintains regulatory control while promoting the appearance of individual autonomy.
Freedom1c requires the person to take initiatives in the face of uncertainty.
0030 What do I mean by freedom1c?
The virtual nested form in the realm of potential says, “The normal context of educational freedom1c brings the actuality of one’s occupation1b 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 initiatives1c projecting motivational awareness into the content-level potential1a?
Does the term, “empowerment”, apply?
0031 Uh-oh, Betsy DeVos now replaces three elements in the interscope of BG3c(il)L1c education.
0032 Obviously, DeVos’s use of the term, “empowerment”, does not coincide with its use the normal context of big-government3c. 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 government3c or Betsy DeVos’s creative initiatives3c.
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 certificate2a, then you will get a job1b that shows that you belong to a profession2b. That is certainty1c.
BG(il)L initiatives3c cultivate certainty1c and job security1b.
Betsy DeVos’s initiatives3c create uncertainty1c and jobs that are not defined by federal regulations1b.
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)L3c and another meaning in the interscope of Betsy DeVos3c, the eleventh Secretary at the Department of Education.
0039 The three-level interscope is the game board.
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 specializations2b, hence jobs1b, through certification2a. The central government engages in cultural selection3b (in the specializations that they regulate) and individual selection3b (in that individuals exercise automony1a in their alignment with BG(il)L incentives1a towards certification2a).
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 BG3c(il)L1c 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?
My identity becomes my job1b.
The group that I identify with becomes my specialization2b. Another word for specialization is “lifestyle2b“. What are your chosen pronouns?
Individual and cultural selection3b then morphs into group-identity… er… lifestyle selection3b.
0047 Here is a picture of the substitutions on the situation level.
0048 For the perspective level, BG(il)L interventions3c replace big government3c.
These interventions3c select in favor of some lifestyles3b (take a guess, I bet that none of the guesses describe Betsy DeVos) and against other lifestyles3b (take a guess, I bet that many of the guesses apply to Betsy DeVos).
Indeed, a whole new suite of expertise is demanded. This expertise2c is capable of explaining BG(il)L perspective-level interventions3c in terms of social justice, critical theory and social constructivism. Interventional expertise2c emerges from (and situates) the potential of ‘certainty’1c. In turn, certainty1c virtually contextualizes identity1b. Plus, identity1bvirtually situates the personal choice that one is groomed for1a.
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)liberalism1cbringing jobs1b into relation with the possibility that individuals are motivated1a to become certified2a as specialists2bwho will then fill those jobs1b. The student loan crisis is a symptom of that failure. Students are not getting the jobs1bthat they are specialized2b in, indicating a failure of the federal educational system3b.
0051 In contrast, Betsy DeVos proposes educational3c freedom1c.
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 initiatives2c that promise certainty1c, rather than the uncertainty that they rhetorically associate with freedom1c.
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 jobs1b, then is education about being groomed for an identity1b?
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?”
Before it opens, I want to thank Betsy DeVos for taking this reader beyond the notion of school choice and into the dynamics of educational freedom1c. There is more to be discovered in this new jurisdiction, standing outside the prison of big government3c (il)liberalism1c.
0056 Of course, the curtain may never open. People may decide that it is better to live as slaves under the appearance of freedom. But, that collective decision only assures the experts that appearances are no longer necessary. Experts are trained to know these things. Certain experts are prepared to make us slaves to the identities that they have manufactured for us.
0057 Be that as it may, the following diagram presents (what I imagine) is behind the curtain. Betsy DeVos’s educational interscope is a vision to behold.
The next essay that Millerman reviews is titled, “Heidegger’s Ear”.
Here, Derrida waxes on a snippet in Heidegger’s book, Being and Time, that mentions the voice of a friend whom every Dasein carries with it.
0032 To me, if Heidegger’s leap really opens a vista into the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, then Heidegger would have used the word, “gesture”, rather than “voice”.
Or, maybe, the word, “voice” is okay, since, before the first singularity, humans practice hand-speech talk. Two modes of talking co-exist. Cultural tradition determines which mode is more appropriate for any particular social situation.
0033 Derrida reads German. So, he has an ear for Heidegger. German (B), like all spoken languages, carries a conceptual apparatus (D). So, Heidegger must allow Derrida into his pact (B), concerning openness to an inception (C), that is like a concept, but is not a concept, because it complements a secret (A) that makes us present (Da-) to being itself (-Sein) (D).
Because Derrida speaks German, he must be a “friend”. But, Derrida finds that naive, because he can also be an enemy. Derrida figures out that, if you speak the same language, then you can share secrets. Heidegger says “friend” in the most naive way, as if the word reflects a state before the duality of friends and enemies. It seems to me that Derrida could be a real enemy who infiltrated behind the defenses of an opposing camp. And, he knows it.
Derrida is a dangerous philosopher. Everyone respects Derrida. Everyone fears deconstruction. Derrida approaches Heidegger as a “friend”, who speaks the same language. Derrida knows that the fraternal order of philosophy has splintered. First, everyone is a companion (or a compatriot). Then, everyone is either a friend or an enemy. Heidegger marks this transition with a German word: Geschlect.
0034 According to Derrida, Geschlect is a “mark”, a sign of division, a yellow patch for some and no patch for others. Well, maybe the patch can be sex, race, species, genus, status, genealogy or community. The yellow/no patch dualityrelies on concepts (that is, explicit abstractions). Yet, certain phenotypic and physical tags are inceptual (that is, implicit abstractions). But, explicit abstractions end up justifying these implicit abstractions.
0035 Here, I can see the threat of Derrida’s genius. Concepts, as utterances2m [carrying] information2f, are manifestations of Saussure’s definition of spoken language, parole2m [arbitrary relation] langue2f. This implies that the apparent mechanical substance corresponding to [carry] is really grounded in the slippery substance of [arbitrary relation]. This is the nature of sensible construction in speech-alone talk.
Here is how Derrida’s Greimas square manifests as sensible construction.
0036 What does Geschlect do?
Geschlect traverses the topolitology of secrets. In the city of Geschlect, there is a factory, turning pre-political feelingsinto conceptualized divisions among people. Today, that factory is called “modern politics”. It is run by, for and of the government. But, it claims to be by, for and of the People. Compatriots become friends and enemies.
0037 The voice of the compatriot, Heidegger’s “friend”, is embedded in the constitution of the human. Prior to the first singularity, hand-speech talk relies on manual-brachial gestures. Solidarity is guaranteed by one’s gaze. Someone who word-gestures a falsehood is immediately exposed as one’s enemy. How so? Manual-brachial gestures are defined by what they picture or point to. Word-gestures do not define their referents. They picture and point to them.
In contrast, spoken words do not picture or point to anything.
0038 After the first singularity, spoken language relies on our innate sensibilities until… labor and social specialization starts to spin explicit abstractions, like threads on a spool, and speech becomes something like a secret. You have to know the relation between the utterance and the information, in order to be a member of the club. So, the arbitrary relation between parole and langue slowly, irrevocably, weaves the threads into conceptual apparatuses.
Everyone who speaks the same language starts as a compatriot. But, two parties emerge, ones who are in tune with the conceptual apparatus and the ones who still imagine that our words picture and point to their referents.
0039 Derrida discovers a secret within the secret. The conceptual apparatus is mechanistic. And, like all machines, it can be constructed differently. So, deconstruction is a technique to shake the conceptual apparatus, in order to expose the arbitrariness of its relations. Concepts divide us. Deconstructed concepts unnerve us.
Heidegger discovers the foundation of the secret. The secret is a pact, where information is known only by us, and that pact cannot be articulated in speech-alone words. Instead of a concept, where the utterance is a conspiracy, Heidegger proposes an incept, where the pact manifests as inspiration. An incept draws us into one inspiration.
0040 Heidegger has a word that is translated as “both strife and accord”. I suppose that strife labels the struggle to keep the vessel empty. I suppose that accord is the happy moment when the vessel is full. The word is “Walten“.
Or perhaps, Walten is the originating unity of two real elements. Perhaps I can imagine that these elements are —2m and vessel2f. So the unity or the contiguity is [empty]. But also, imagine the unity of …known only to us2m and vessel2f. The contiguity is [fill].
Either way, the originating unity of two real elements is inceptual.
No one can open someone else to an inception. Inception is where the seed of conviction germinates. No political philosopher has a recipe for an inceptual institution of the theologico-political domain. No one, except for Jesus, has torn the veilwoven by explicit abstraction. In contrast, many theologians and politicians have quested for a magical token that empowers the veil and strands us in the domain of conceptual apparatuses.
0041 In our cutthroat world of concepts, people cling to their worldviews, ridicule other worldviews, and fail to notice that their conceptual apparatuses have closed them off from their inceptual heritage. Concepts pose as things that bring us into organization. But, is organization all there is?
Of late, the United States of America has a humorous tradition in this regard. They name legislative decrees with the conceptual apparatus that they are going to replace. For example, in 2001, the so-called “Patriot Act” is legislated and signed into law. Twenty years later, a surveillance-oriented bureaucracy identifies members of the “make America great again” movement as “domestic terrorists”.
Yes, the utterance of “domestic terrorists” institutes a concept that identifies patriots as enemies of thier surveillance state.
0042 What does this imply?
Is Walten like a secret, that is, information known only to us?
Then, as fast as I can say, “Geschlect.”, there are two parties. One party focuses on information. One party focuses on the “known only by us” business.
How can companions come together after established nomenclature turns everyone into either friends or enemies? As politics invades all aspects of society, each person asks, “Which worldview do I belong to?” Cognitive machinations hustle propaganda and apologetics. Some people get carried away. The last thing they want is to be cut from the pact. No one wants to get cut. Plus, true believers are willing to sacrifice others to their cause.
How does a people become a people?
I suppose that theologico-political topolitologies are required.
Plus, it seems as if the secret allows me to visualize the topolitology ofaWalten, an originating unity of two realities.
Here is one reality, corresponding to “information…”.
0043 Here is the other element, corresponding to “…known only by us”.
When does a Walten solidify its current theologico-political domain?
An accord, seeking to be filled with a conceptual apparatus (D), leads to calcification and total domination.
When does a Walten liquify its current theologico-political domain?
A struggle to be open to being filled by God’s meaning, presence and message (H) leads to revelation and new life.
0044 To the extent that Derrida reads German, Derrida is Heidegger’s companion.
What does Derrida see?
Heidegger’s “friend” can speak as either friend or enemy. Geschlect says, “You are either friend or enemy.” Walten says, “Please, remain a companion.”
0045 In one fashion, Derrida’s and Heidegger’s theologico-political constructions mirror one another.
I suspect that Derrida stays his desconstructive hand in recognition of this reality.
In another fashion, these two theological-political constructions derive from a single, undifferentiated, realness, to which we, in our current Lebenswelt, can never return.
We need deconstruction to combat our march towards death by a totalizing conceptual apparatus.
We need inception to seed the fields of our open minds.
In the chapter on Derrida, Millerman finds good reason to start with Heidegger.
I start with the evolution of the planet and life2H and the Creation Story2V.
The single actuality is the world.
The world includes the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
This intersection between evolution2H and Genesis 12V is packed with accidental and essential contradictions. Theologians are capable of distinguishing essential from accidental.
For example, one essential contradiction is this: Each narrative presents a sequence of events in the realization of our world. But, each sequence is unique. How can a Genesis day be the same as an evolutionary epoch? Yet, the two sequences are drawn into a single actuality. They are stuck together in a mystery. I call that mystery, “the world”.
0064 Plus, there is a world within the world.
Genesis 1:26-31 portrays the intending, the creating, the blessing and the feeding of humans as well as the animals that humans keep. This implies that human evolution actually associates to our world, rather than our current Lebenswelt.
If I consider the intersection of all of evolution2H and the Genesis Creation Story2V, I arrive at configuration similar to the intersection of human evolution2H and Genesis 1:26-312V.
The single actuality is the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
0066 Once these associations are made, then original sin2V binds to a twist in long-established trends in human evolution2H. Since this twist2H does not immediately alter prehistoric natural history or human genetics, the twist must be a cultural adaptation.
The single actuality is our current Lebenswelt.
0067 These intersections do not speak to us of dissonance, per se.
These intersections speak to us of mystery.
A mystery contains irreconcilable contradictions.
0068 One task of the theologian is to separate the accidental and the essential contradictions, in order to clarify the mystery. This is hard work. A mystery cannot be fully explained, partially explained or declared unexplainable. A mystery cannot be resolved by sensible construction. A mystery evokes social construction.
See the e-work, A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
0069 A mystery provides a message. The message is clear. A single realness coalesces from two disparate actualities. The two nested forms are bound. In this message of unity, the normal contexts and the potentials cannot be regarded as fully independent. Two nested forms bind into a mystery.
[Reason itself does not require grace. Or does it?
Since I, seat of choice3V, contextualizes the heart2, and since the heart is contextualized by the mirror of the world3H, then reason may (inadvertently) open the person to the influence of grace through the horizontal normal context.
Reason may change the heart2 just enough that the person’s intuition1H may feel grace-filled inspiration.]