Looking at Appendix 1.3 in Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 12 of 18)

0113 How can a sign-vehicle serve as a symbol and as an icon?

Author Brian Kemple raises the question in Appendix 1.3 of his 2019 book, The Intersection of Semiotics and Phenomenology: Peirce and Heidegger in Dialogue (Walter de Gruyter, Boston/Berlin).

0114 Well, Kemple is not talking about the sign-vehicle for any sign-relation.

He is referring to the sign-vehicle of the intellectual concept.

Or, should I say, “He is referring to the intellectual concept as a sign-vehicle.”?

0115 How would the category-based nested form approach wrestle with these statements?

I proceed by way of example.

I left off with the a sign-relation where the sign-vehicle corresponds to a perspective-level actuality2cthe sign-objectgoes with a content-level actuality2a and the sign-interpretant corresponds to the content-level normal context3a and potential1a.

Figure 31

0116 Does the sign-vehicle fit the label, “intellectual concept”?

I suspect that it does.  After all, the perspective-level actuality2c offers itself as a sign-object to two sign-relations that span the situation and perspective levels.

0117 Say what?

Recall the examination of appendix 1.2, where the perspective-level actuality2c engages an extrinsic and an intrinsic final interpretant.

Figure 32

0118 I can isolate the sign-object as an intellectual concept.  Surely, a network of roads and the challenges to my travelsare one level beyond situational dynamics.  A roadmap and a plan are intellectual concepts.

Figure 33

0119 What happens when these two sign-objects contribute to a single sign-vehicle?

Oh, let me read the first line of this examination (point 0113).

0120 The roadmap is like an icon.  An icon is a sign-relation whose sign-object is based on the character of firstness… as in… similarity.  The roadmap (SV) stands for a network of roads (SO) in regards to the principle of proportion (SI).

Perhaps, it is odd to consider a SO repurposing itself into a SV keying into the same principle of proportion as a roadmap (SI, extrinsic final) as well as into the challenges to travel brought on by the landslide (SI, intrinsic final).  So, an act of Zeus contextualizes a principle of proportion (characteristic of maps) as well as a principle of divine retribution(characteristic of how devastating storms challenge travel).

0121 The challenge for my travels reflects the character of symbols.  A symbol is a sign-relation whose sign-object is based on the character of thirdness… as in… convention.  Surely, the conventional path from my town to other towns relies on the road that is now blocked by a landslide.  So, the blocked road becomes a symbol for Zeus’s anger at our particular city.  I bet that it has something to do with our new king, Oedipus.

Yes, he solved the riddle of the Sphinx that once made that road so treacherous.  But, people are also getting sick and now a landslide blocks the road to medical expertise.

0122 Kemple offers a figure.  It is the second figure in the entire book.  Here is how I imagine it.

Figure 34

0123 The intellectual concept of where a (blocked) road goes serves as a sign-vehicle that hybridizes map (icon) and divine Zeus’s thunderbolts (symbol).  The corresponding sign-object serves as an image even though the sign-interpretant operates as if the sign-object is a symbol. 

Here is a picture.

Figure 35

The interventional sign produces a content level that recapitulates the original immediate vehicle, object and interpretant of virtual semiosis.

0124 Here is a comparison.

Figure 36

00125 The implications?

Here is one option.

Can a sign-vehicle (a perspective-level actuality2c) generate an imagistic sign-object (a content-level actuality2a) and a symbol-istic sign-interpretant (content-level normal context3a and potential1a)? 

Do human conventions generate artifacts for virtual semiosis?

Do cultural artifacts serve as immediate objects?

Consider Comments on Sasha Newell’s Article (2018) “The Affectiveness of Symbols”.


Looking at Appendix 2 in Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 13 of 18)

0126 Appendix 2 is titled, “Language”.

Surely, one’s education should include histories of spoken words.

After all, spoken words are all we have.

0127 Take the word, “education”.  

It derives from the Latin word, educare, which translates as “to train or to mold”.

That is not all.

It also derives from the Latin word, educere, which translates as “to lead out”.

0128 Such a dual inheritance reminds me of the distinction between the words, “deduce” and “educe”.  Deduction follows the rules of logic, particularly the principle of non-contradiction.  Eduction brings out, figures out and sheds light on the topic at hand.

After considering the previous blogs on appendices 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, it is easy to imagine that deduction applies to secondness (the realm of actuality) and that eduction applies to thirdness and firstness (the realms of normal contexts and potentials).  Or, maybe I cans say that deduction applies to sign-objects and eduction applies to sign-vehicles and sign-interpretants.

“Education” combines “deduction” (educare) and “eduction” (educere).

“Education” is a spoken word.

So, what is the nature of spoken words?

0129 At the turn of the 20th century, Ferdinand de Saussure revolutionizes linguistics by proposing that speech-alone words are placeholders in two arbitrarily related systems of differences, parole (speech) and langue (whatever is going on in one’s head when hearing or generating spoken words).

Of course, cognitive psychologists can observe and measure parole.  They can build models.  They can discuss these models using a specialized disciplinary language. As such, parole (speech acts) are similar to phenomena.  If phenomenaare observable and measurable facets of their noumenon, then parole are observable and measurable facets of langue.

0130 Well, that is my suggestion, for the moment.

0131 If I think in terms of secondness, then I think in terms of two contiguous real elements.  For spoken language, the two real elements are parole and langue.  The contiguity is an arbitrary relation.  For science, the two real elements are phenomena and their noumenon.  The contiguity is not arbitrary, nor is it obvious.  Rather, it is a slogan that goes back to Immanuel Kant.  A noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena.

The hylomorphic structure of a noumenon and its phenomena, attributed to Kant in the same manner that the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses, corresponds to ‘what is’ of the Positivist’s judgment.  This is discussed in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

0132 The above discussion suggests that I juxtapose two hylomorphic structures.

Figure 37

0133 If the juxtaposition sparks a feeling, then the feeling says, “No matter how well we observe, measure, model and technically discuss parole, we can never objectify langue, unless the relation between parole (as an external system of differences) and langue (as an internal system of differences) becomes motivated, and a comparison with Kant’s slogan is no longer secure.  If the relation between parole and langue is motivated, then the phenomena of talk can objectify the noumenon of the way that we cognitively process that talk.”


Looking at Appendix 2 in Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 14 of 18)

0134 The English word, “education”, arises from two Latin terms, meaning “to train” and “to lead out”.

Perhaps, German is superior to English in simultaneously evoking more than one kernel in a single word.  In German, word-elements concatenate effortlessly.  There could be a German word for “the relation of arbitrariness between langueand parole” or for “the impossibility of phenomena fully objectifying their noumenon“.

0135 Does German-speaking Martin Heidegger hold an advantage?

Maybe, maybe not.  After all, he could not concatenate das Sein (Being) and des Seienden (beings).  Oh, what am I saying?  That is what he did, more or less.  So, when I place Heidegger’s not-fully melded concatenation against what isfor science, I get the following juxtaposition.

Figure 38

0136 How curious.

Am I suggesting that Heidegger’s phrase, das Sein des Seienden (the Being of beings), conceals a contiguity, and that contiguity is the same as the one that applies to all scientific things?

0137 Recall, the noumenon is the thing itself.  Its phenomena are its observable and measurable facets.  Plus, according to Kant’s slogan, a noumenon cannot be fully objectified as its phenomena.  This applies to all things in the natural sciences.  Empirio-schematic inquiry observes and measures phenomena.  Their noumenon is ignored.

By juxtaposition, das Sein is Being itself.  Des Seienden are beings that we encounter in our daily lives.  Plus, according to the implicit contiguity between these two real elements, Being cannot be fully objectified as beings that we encounter in our daily lives.  This applies to all modern things.

0138 Plus, as discussed in the prior blog, during the early 20th century, hylomorphic structures that juxtapose with ‘what is’ in the Positivist’s judgment seem to be in style.  The ground-breaking linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure, comes up with a similar structure, allowing me to say the following.

By juxtaposition, langue is language itself.  Parole are spoken words that we encounter in our daily lives.  Plus, according to the arbitrary relation between langue and parole, language cannot be fully objectified by speech acts.  This applies to everything we say. 

0139 What does this imply?

That is a good question.


Looking at Appendix 2 in Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 15 of 18)

0140 What is the meaning, presence and message underlying a spoken word?

That is the question addressed in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0106 The category-based nested form allows an answer.  The normal context of definition3 brings the actuality of a spoken word2 into relation with the potentials of meaning, presence and message1

0141 How does this answer apply to the topic at hand?

To me, Martin Heidegger (and Charles Peirce, for that matter) wrestle with meaning.   Social construction corresponds to the meaning underlying the word, “religion”.  Social construction is what happens when one encounters a thing or event that does not make sense.  A social construction2c is a perspective-level reference2c constructed on a content-level reference2a.

0142 In addition to How to Define, the following three-level interscope is developed in Comments on Religious Experience (1985) by Wayne Proudfoot.

I start with a content-level category-based nested form.  The normal context of what is happening3a brings the actuality of a real encounter2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in ‘something’ happening1a.

Such an encounter would be processed on the situation level within the normal context of sensible construction3b.  But, what if sensible construction3b fails?  Then the failure of sensible construction3b brings the actuality that the experience cannot be situated2b into relation with the potential of situating the content-level encounter1b.

0143 When sensible construction fails, most people freak out, but not Kant or Peirce or Heidegger or Saussure or other brave souls who wrestle with meaning.  They ask themselves, “What makes sense?”, where “sense” means “a recovery from a lack of composure in the face of something that is not experienced as sensible”.

On the perspective level, the normal context of what makes sense3c brings the actuality of a social construction2c into relation with the potential of contextualizing the unsettling situation1c.

0144 Thus, I arrive at a three-level interscope that touches base with the hylomorphic structures introduced earlier in this examination of appendix 2 of Kemple’s book.

Figure 39

The virtual nested form in the realm of actuality contracts into the following hylomorphe.

Figure 40

A key feature of this hylomorphic structure is that the contiguity contains a negation.

0145 So far, so good.

The three-level interscope depicted above describes what Schleiermacher realizes (around 1800 AD) and what Proudfoot tries to dismantle (186 years later) in his rebuttal, entitled Religious Experience.

But, I wonder.

Is Proudfoot arguing against the interscope or the contracted hylomorphic slogan?

Plus… is there a label for a transition from a three-level interscope to a corresponding hylomorphe?

Consolidation?  Reduction?  Reification?

0146 Does the same whatever this transition is called apply to the slogan attributed to Immanuel Kant (who also wrote around 1800 AD)?

Kant reflects upon the mechanical revolution and the expansion of science.  The revolution starts rolling with the mechanical philosophers of the 1600s.  The roll is undeniable with mechanization, starting in the 1700s.

Plus, how about those crazy political revolutions in the late 1700s?

Western civilization embraces the empirio-schematic judgment.  This judgment contains three elements: well-defined specialized terms, mathematical and mechanical models, and observations and measurements of phenomena.   So, everyone (that is, those enjoying the pretensions of science) focuses on phenomena.

0147 But, phenomena alone cannot account for the thing that is being studied!

Kant (more or less) points out that a noumenon (the thing itself) cannot be fully accounted for by its phenomena (that is, the thing’s observable and measurable facets).

0148 Here is a picture of Kant’s insight within the format of this three-level interscope.

Figure 41

0149 Now, over time, this insight, which consists of perspective-level, situation-level and content-level actualities, is taken for more and more for granted.  A slogan appears. The slogan expresses a hylomorphic structure, so it is seems like a thing.  But, it is not a thing.  What is it?  A contraction?  An idea?  Maybe I can call it an “idealism”.  

Figure 42

0150 The slogan goes like this, “A noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.”

The slogan has the character of a hylomorphic thing that should belong to secondness.  But, the positivist intellect regards it as what is and imbues it with firstness.  What does the positivist intellect regard as what ought to be and imbue with the category of secondness?  What ought to be is the empirio-schematic judgment, where a disciplinary language (relation) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be) into relation with observations and measurements (what is).


Looking at Appendix 2 in Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 16 of 18)

0151 After a century, Kant’s insights are reified into a slogan.

Figure 43

0152 At this time, Peirce considers the nature of sign-relations.  The story is told in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  Peirce knows that Kant’s categories are considered necessary for science, but he cannot situate Kant’s categories using his understanding of sign-relations.

So, Peirce’s social construction follows the same pattern.

Figure 44

0155 Heidegger walks on stage around three decades later. At the time, only a few academics are familiar with Peirce’s (re)discovery of the causality inherent in signs and his proposal of three categories of existence.

0156 Heidegger starts as a student of philosophy.  During this time, he reads a book on speculative grammar by the medieval scholastic, Scotus.  But, the treatise is only attributed to Scotus. The real author is Thomas of Erfurt. 

Then, Heidegger becomes a student of Husserl.  Husserl’s phenomenology wrestles with the nature of science.   Husserl proposes phenomenology (which is named after phenomena) in order to return to the noumenon, the thing itself, because science was on the verge of fixating on phenomena to the exclusion of its noumenon.

0157 I suppose that Heidegger realizes that what Husserl is dealing with (the Positivist’s judgment) does not extend to what Scotus (er… Thomas of Erfurt) discusses with his speculative grammar.

Eventually, Heidegger produces a social construction that bears the imprint of the hylomorphic structure that Husserl wrestles with.

Figure 45

Looking at Appendix 2 in Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 17 of 18)

0158 So, how do these comments apply to what Kemple writes about language?

Okay, I plead “guilty”.

Perhaps, there is no application.

0159 Oh, I have an excuse.

I got distracted by the normal context of definition3 bringing the actuality of a spoken word2 into relation with the potential of meaning, presence and message1.

Then, I realized that Saussure’s definition of spoken language, as an arbitrary relation between two systems of differences, parole and langue, can be expressed with the same hylomorphic structure as ‘what is’ for the positivist intellect.  So does Heidegger’s das Sein des Seienden.

Then, I connected this hylomorphic structure to the actualities native to social construction.

0160 So why am I so easily distracted?

Surely, speech-alone talk is at the crux of the intersection between Peirce and Heidegger.

Why do I say, “speech-alone talk”, instead of “language”?

Perhaps, there is another story to be told.

See An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

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


Looking at Appendix 3 in Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 18 of 18)

0161 What about Appendix 3, titled “Synechism and semiosis”?

0162 Well, I best look into Appendix 4, which presents a helpful list of definitions.

“Synechism” is a principle of continuity.  There are no hard and fast distinctions between possibilities, because firstness is monadic.  In the empirio-schematic judgment, the dyad, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena, exists in the realm of possibility and obeys this principle.  There are no phenomena without their noumenon.  There is no noumenon without its phenomena.  The hazards of synechism are yet to be deeply appreciated.  For scientific inquiry, what happens when certain actors claim to be observing the phenomena of a noumenon which is not… um… obvious to other people?

“Tychism” is a corollary of synechism.  Peirce envisions chance (er… possibility) as universal.  Without possibility, there is no actuality or normal context.  If there is an actuality that appears out of nowhere, in such a fashion that it has no normal context, then we are back to phenomena of a noumenon which is not… um… subject to understanding.

“Semiosis” is the action of signs.  Signs are triadic relations.  Triadic relations constitute the human niche.

0163 For the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, our ancestors adapt to an ultimate niche as well as many proximate niches.  This means that hominin evolution is both convergent, with respect to our ultimate niche, and divergent, with respect to many proximate niches.  The ultimate niche is the potential of triadic relations.  The proximate niches are regional ecologies and environments.

Language evolves in the milieu of hand talk.  Hand talk relies on the semiotic qualities of icons and indexes to motivate a relation between parole (hand talk) and langue (mental processing).  As this motivated relation becomes more and more conventional (that is, habitual within hominin social circles), hand-talk gestures become more and more like signs in an arbitrary system of differences (that is, symbols).  Grammar consists of symbolic operations within a finite set of symbols.  By the time anatomically modern humans appear, hand talk is fully linguistic.

0164 Speech is added to hand talk with the appearance of our own species, Homo sapiens.

Humans practice hand-speech talk for around 200,000 years, with great success.

0165 Around 7,800 years ago, the end of the previous ice age raises sea-levels, flooding shallow geological basins such as what is now the Persian Gulf.  In the process, two hand-speech talking cultures, one settled on the basin and one settled along the coast and river gorge, are forced into proximity.  A pidgin and then a creole ensues.  The creole is the Sumerian language (unrelated to the nearby Semitic languages).  But, more importantly, this creole is the first instance of speech-alone talk.

At its inception, the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia is the only culture in the world practicing speech-alone talk.

It is no coincidence that the world’s earliest civilization arises in southern Mesopotamia.

Speech-alone talk potentiates civilization.

0166 Our current Lebenswelt is marked by speech-alone talk.  Speech-alone talk spreads from the Ubaid to the four-corners of the world, potentiating unconstrained social complexity wherever it goes.

7800 years ago, the world population may have been as many as seven million.

Today, it is seven billion.

Such is the significance of the first singularity, the transition from hand-speech talk to speech-alone talk.

0167 Heidegger is a German philosopher who strives to restart Western philosophy after it fumbles its founding charisma.

Peirce is a precocious American post-modern who becomes fascinated with one of the crucial questions asked by scholastic philosophers, “What is the causality inherent to the sign-relation?”

0168 Both these philosophers propose ideas that address a single question, “What is the nature of our current Lebenswelt?”

Their answers apply to a single actuality.

0169 I do not know the name of this actuality, but I do appreciate the significance of Kemple’s attempt to delineate an intersection (without being aware that the term, “intersection”, might have a technical definition that supports his inquiry).

An intersection is an actuality composed of two actualities, each of which has its own nested form.

0170 For these reasons, Brian Kemple’s book, The Intersection of Semiotics and Phenomenology: Peirce and Heidegger in Dialogue, deserves interest.  While my examinations, so far, covering the term, “intersection”, and the appendices, are sparse, they are suggestive.  There is a lot at play within the pages of this book.


Looking at Betsy DeVos’s Book (2022) “Hostages No More” (Part 1 of 8)

0001 Betsy DeVos serves as the eleventh Secretary of Education of the US Federal Government.  She advocates for reform.  She speaks for herself.  Whether her message is heard by the people is another matter.  Her book’s full title is Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child.  The publisher is Center Street (Nashville, New York), a division of Hachette Book Group (New York).

0002 Hachette?

Isn’t that French for “tiny axe”?

0003 Well, I have my own little cognitive hatchet.  It is called the category-based nested form.  I used this tool in the May 2023 blog (www.raziemah.com), Looking at Heather Heying and Bret Weinsteins’s Book (2021) “A Hunter-Gather’s Guide to the 21st Century”.

Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein resigned from modern higher education in 2017 and are now offering guidance, in the form of the Darkhorse podcast.  These two were not about to be held hostage by the minions of big government (il)liberalism (BG(il)L: spoken “bigilib”).

Why did these two professors run from the BG(il)L education system?

Perhaps, it no longer teaches critical thinking, unless, of course, one alters the definition of the term, “critical”.

Does “critical” mean “be skeptical” or does it mean “situate by Marxist resentment”?  Most people would point to the former, but educators teaching so-called “critical theory” technically indicate the latter.

The April 2023 blog, Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “Parasitic Mind”, educes a three-level interscope where three normal contexts align.  Social justice3c virtually brings critical theory3b into relation with the potential of social constructivism3a.

0004 Saad’s reality makes Betsy DeVos’s book intriguing.  

Do the nested forms obtained in prior examinations apply to Betsy DeVos’s work?

What does that imply?

That is all I axe.


Looking at Betsy DeVos’s Book (2022) “Hostages No More” (Part 2 of 8)

0005 How to begin?

Here is how Looking at Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein’s Book (2021) The Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21stCentury ends.  A BG(il)L education system may be depicted as a two-level interscope.  The two level interscope is introduced in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  A two-level interscope associates to sensible construction.

Figure 01

0006 On the content level, the normal contexts of individual and institutional development3a bring the actuality of certification2a into relation with the potential of ‘personal and government motivations’1a.  Note that the individual and the institution belong to the normal context3a and potential1a, implying that the individual adopts motivations promulgated by the state.  There is word for the condition where a person adopts the motivations of a governmental system in order to get ahead (in this case, certified2a).  Dare I say the colloquial version of that word?

0007 On the situation level, the normal context of individual and cultural selection3b brings the actuality of specialization2b into relation with the potential of ’employment’1b.  This implies that ‘a job’ conveys the potential of the entire content level nested form.  What might be an alternative?  How about ‘character development’?

With that idea in mind, take a look at the normal context3b once again.  Both individual and cultural selection2b endeavor to fill specialized2b jobs1b with individuals willing to (dare I say the word?) to government systems in order to get ahead.  Perhaps, I can call the process, “unnatural selection”.

0008 Who would volunteer to become hostages… er… collaborators to such a system?

Betsy DeVos’s political adversaries.

Indeed, they would volunteer every child to become a hostage in their BG(il)L system.  After all, being a hostage is good for them.  Being a hostage turns them into collaborators (rather than sovereign individuals).  Being a hostage2a is the pathway to getting a job1b.

0009 The BG(il)L system is not about character development, which requires guidance.  It is all about expertise, which requires instruction.  Experts are specialists2b.  Experts are certified2a to participate in particular occupations1b. Specializations2b virtually situate certification2a.

The two-level operation appears sensible.  DeVos talks about mastery of subject.  Is that the same as expertise?  These terms belong to a level that does not appear in the above figures.  The perspective level only becomes visible when the content and situation levels fail.  Is the above sensible construction failing?  Well, I already know that it fails anyone who does not want to conform their personal motivations1a to the desires of the state1a in order to get a job1b.

0010 Does this fit with DeVos’s storyline?

I think so.  DeVos writes as if she holds a perspective-level solution to mandatory BG(il)L education systems.  Subject mastery2c is not the same as expertise2c.


Looking at Betsy DeVos’s Book (2022) “Hostages No More” (Part 3 of 8)

0011 The prior blog provides a glimpse into the perspective-level actuality2c that contextualizes America’s established BG(il)L education system.  Here is how experties2c fits into the picture.

0012 The perspective-level normal context3c and potential1c are not obvious.  The perspective-level actuality2c is.

Expertise2c virtually brings specialization2b into relation with the potential of certification2a.  This is obvious.

The perspective-level normal context3c and potential1c are not so obvious, because the situation- and content-level normal contexts, as well as the potentials, confound the individual, the institution and the government.

0013 Here is a picture.

Figure 03

0014 The perspective-level virtually brings the situation-level into relation with the potential of the content-level.  In this instance, “virtual” could mean either “in simulation” (the modern option) or “in virtue” (the scholastic option).

0015 For actuality, expertise2c virtually brings specializations2b into relation with the potential of certification2a.

For the column of normal contexts, a BG(il)L perspective3c virtually brings individual and cultural selection3b into relation with the potentials of individual and institutional development3a.  The perspective-level normal context3c must embody the government1a that appears in the content-level potential1a.  The normal context3c also must set the stage for cultural selection3b, in regards to both individuals (who are selected for specialization2b) and institutions (who are selected for providing the education leading to certification2a).

Betsy DeVos says, over and over, that the Federal Department of Education is concerned about institutions (such as colleges, school districts, administrators and unionized teachers), rather than students.  They are interested in processes that provide instructions leading to certification (for students motivated to fit into an already established menu of specializations).  They could not care less about what students really need.  They presume that students need to conform to their programs, their goals and their definition of what students must know in order to acquire certification.

0016 What label applies to the perspective-level normal context3c?

Would the term, “big government”, suffice?

0017 The perspective-level potential1c virtually contextualizes jobs1b, while jobs1b virtually situate personal and governmental motivations1a.  What is the nature of this perspective-level potential1c?  First, it defines jobs1b through regulatory controls.  For example, a government may decree that only certain specializations2b (which much be certified2a) are allowed to perform certain tasks… er… jobs1b.  Second, governmental motivations1a are taken for granted by people motivated1a to become specialized2b in order to obtain well-defined jobs1b.

In other words, the government maintains regulatory control of the situation (jobs1b) while providing the appearance that the individual is free to choose his or her own destiny (personal motives1a).  In the process, government motivations1a are simply taken for granted and not contested.  After all, it would not be sensible to contest government motivations1a.  Most students and parents have no clue that their ambitions are pursued in conformity with government agendas.

0018 What label applies to the perspective-level potential1c?

Would the term, “(il)liberal”, do the trick?

Well, what does (il)liberal mean?

Liberalism elevates individual autonomy… say, sovereignty… above various authorities, including religious institutions, businesses, civic networks, military organizations, governments, and so forth.  So, the prefix, (il), is hidden because there is an unacknowledged exception.  The government is excepted.  So, (il)liberalism provides the appearance of individual autonomy while maintaining government regulatory control.

The virtual nested form in firstness says, “(Il)liberalism1c virtually brings jobs1b into relation with the potentials of personal and governmental motivations1a.”

0019 Here is the perspective-level nested form for BG(il)L education.

Figure 04