0006 After the prior discussion, here is another diagram of Estulin’s Greimas square.
0007 This Greimas square spawns three nested forms, each with a triadic normal context, a dyadic actuality corresponding to matter and form, and a monadic potential. (See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
I skip all the steps of development. These are in the commentary.
Here is the first of three permutations.
0008 The normal context is economics (A)3. Economics (A) associates to the social mind and to capitalism.
The actuality consists of two contiguous real elements, in the same fashion as matter2m [contiguity] form2f. Here, politics (B)2m serves as matter. Conspiracy system (C)2f goes with form. The contiguity is [ministers].
The actuality is politics(B)2m [ministers to] conspiracy system (C)2f.
Politics (B)2m associates to the social body, communism and the idea that the state governs the social body.
Conspiracy system (C)2f associates to capital, information and intelligence.
0009 For example, for two global projects, the British (and formerly American) and the New Babylon (currently American), the conspiracy system (C)2f takes the form of money and usury. For the British, money is a precious metal. For the New Babylon, money is fiat currency.
0010 For both the British and the New Babylon global projects, communionA (D)1 can be described by a idealized image of Renaissance Venice.
The triadic normal context of economics (A)3 brings the dyadic actuality of politics (B)2m[ministering to] usury and fiat currency (C)2f into relation with the monadic image of ‘Renaissance Venice (D)‘1.
0011 Of course, the Venice of today is a reliquary of the so-called Renaissance. Plus, it is slowly sinking. Soon enough, it will be underwater, not unlike the central banks of the New Babylon global project. Can the Midases of the New Babylon global project stop the tide?
The normal context of capital (C)3 brings the dyadic contiguity of economics (A)2mas matter and politics (B)2fas forminto relation with the possibilities inherent in communionC (D)1.
0016 Perhaps, you can guess where this is going for the New Babylon global project.
0017 The City of London is at once a capitol and a hub for capital. It is like an alchemic mix of Washington D.C. and New York City.
Plus, I have to admit, no one does the politics of compromise (B)2f better than the British. By that, I mean politics (B)2fconducted by people who are compromised (A)2m in the normal context of usury and money (C)3.
0018 What politician is not compromised in the British and New Babylon global projects?
Consider the cost of broadcasting a 20 second television ad containing a ruthless ad hominem attack on some opposing candidate for the office that one holds.
It costs a fortune.
An economic system (A)2mfixated on usury and fiat currency provides the funds. And, they expect a return on their investment. They do not want to spend their hard-churned money foolishly. The politician represents the financial capitalists, not the people.
0019 It even makes me wonder, what does the word, “people”, really mean?
0020 So, consider the cities imaged by the global project of the New Babylon. Say “yes” to Renaissance Venice. Say “no” to Edinburgh, ship those jobs overseas and repackage the assets. Say “hello” to the City of London, full of intrigue, secret societies and corruption.
0021 Unfortunately, New Babylon is at war with other global projects.
In order to appreciate the drama, one must read Estulin’s own words.
0022 Nevertheless, Razie Mah’s e-work, Comments on Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) 2045 Global Projects at War, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, adds value by providing a technique that students and educators may find beneficial.
Each global project contains all three permutations, arranged into an interscope. An interscope is like a three layer cake. The layers are content, situation and perspective. P1, P2 and P3 combine into three different interscopes. These interscopes associate to global projects.
0023 This examination is only a teaser for both Estulin’s book and the corresponding commentary by Razie Mah.
The New Babylon global project is one among many. Estulin covers almost a dozen.
So, one must be selective.
Razie Mah’s commentary develops diagrams for the global project of China.
0024 For all who are interested in the dynamics of global projects, Estulin’s book is a good place to start. Mah’s comments offer a comprehensible technique to apply. The latter complements the former. I encourage intellects to play with Estulin’s approach and Mah’s diagrams.
0025 Alex Jones, bubbalatory founder of the InfoWars website, is currently hounded by deep-state legal-predators. He was recently fined an unimaginable number of dollars to pay for the psychological damage that he apparently inflicted as a bombastic, yet entertaining, provocateur who speaks fiction to fact. Or, is it fact to fiction?
Does fact or fiction matter? If Jones had been a provocateur for the established revolutionary spirits, there would have been no repercussions. Take a look at Steve Colbert and Keith Olbermann, who serve as provocateurs for the diverse monocultures of big government (il)liberalism.
0026 What does matter?
Or, should I ask, “What does not matter?”
At the same time that Jones is fined a grave sum, the actual murderer, who caused the plaintiffs’ real trauma, gets sentenced to life in prison, rather than execution. Perhaps, the second judge should have fined the murderer the same package that the first judge levied on Jones. Which is worse, life in prison or permanent penury?
After all, the event itself is as horrible as questioning the realness of an event.
Is it not?
0027 Of course, it is, to some.
The scholastics of the Latin Age debate this question for around 500 years (roughly, from 1100 to 1600 AD). There are two kinds of beings: ens reale (mind-independent being) and ens rationis (mind-dependent being). The terms are Latin. Speak them with an Italian or French or Spanish accent. The Latin term, “ens” is translated as “being”.
What is “being”?
Being has presence, just like things. But, things are grounded in the material and being includes the immaterial as well as the material. A being may be a purely relational structure.
0028 So, what of the crime that Alex Jones contested?
Clearly, the event of the crime is ens reale.
Also, the skeptical questions that Alex Jones raises are ens rationis.
0029 Ens reale is not the same as ens rationis.
This poses a difficulty for those schoolmen.
0030 Fast forward to the previous century, where a literature-oriented structuralist, Algirdas Julien Greimas (1917-1992 AD), adds a twist. He proposes that a spoken word (or term) generates a purely relational field of contrasting and contradicting elements, according to a particular style. The result is the Greimas square, pictured below.
0031 Here is how the Greimas square works (more or less).
A is the item in focus.
B contrasts with A.
C speaks against (or contradicts) B and complements (or implicates) A.
D contrasts with C, contradicts A and implicates B.
0032 Now, I associate these slots to the scholastic business about mind-independent (A) and mind-dependent (B) being.
0033 Well, I already can see why medieval academic debates take so many bizarre turns. The Greimas square has two items that are not labeled.
Look and see.
I suspect that experts on those scholastic debates can provide the appropriate Latin terms.
0034 Today, I offer labels for C and D.
An illusion (C) is a mind-independent being that is regarded as mind-dependent.
For example, a ten-dollar bill is a mind-independent being that is regarded as a mind-dependent tool for purchasing something. Here is an illusion that functions on a day to day basis.
A delusion (D) is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent.
For example, confidence in the value of a ten-dollarbill is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent. Inflation erodes confidence.
0035 Does the Greimas square apply to Jones’s legal conundrum?
Here is a diagram of the updated scholastic debate.
0036 Here are my associations.
A is a real heinous crime.
B is Alex Jones questioning the veracity or “realness” of the event, especially corporate media’s reporting of the event.
C is the fact that the murderer is sentenced to life in prison, rather than the death penalty.
The real perpetrator gets life in prison, because he is crazy. His psychological conditions are the mind-independent beings that are responsible for the mind-dependent crime. So, the real criminal is a puppet of a mind-independent being, called “psychological conditions”.
D is a judge fining Jones many many many dollars for the psychological distress of those effected by the crime.
Here, Jones’s mind-dependent questions are regarded as mind-independent causes of the psychological distress of those effected by the crime.
0037 Hmmm. I used all the clues I have. But, this square does not make a lot of sense.
Each association technically fits the rules established in the prior blog.
Still, I cannot quite grasp the idea that the psychological damage inflicted by Alex Jones is anything equivalent to the real damage inflicted by the perpetrator on those effected by the crime. Unless, Jones’s questioning (B) derails an alternate mind-dependent being (B’) that would have evoked an illusion (C’) supporting a very expensive delusion (D’).
0038 Now, that sounds more like it.
If Jones thwarts an alternate Greimas square, then the foiled conspirators take vengeance using the cloak of an implausible legal theory. The questions and concerns of Jones (B) are mind-dependent beings that point to the psychological conditions of the perpetrator of the actual crime (C). Yet, the mild sentence (of life in prison, as opposed to execution) show that the justice system does not regard the criminal responsible for the real crime. Rather, psychological conditions account for the criminal act (C) and the criminal is not really responsible for the heinous crime (C). Jones’s questions (B) actually point in this direction, as well as to other possible conditions.
However, Jones’s questions stand in the way of promoting the one who is really responsible for the crime (C’).
We all know who is really responsible. Don’t we?
0039 The implausible legal theory (D) separates the crime itself from its psychological damages.
In the minds of those effected by the heinous crime, Jones is legally responsible for the psychological consequences of a crime that he did not commit (D).
Or something like that. I am not a lawyer. So, who knows what I am talking about?
Oh, I suppose that I am talking about a conspiracy theory.
Don’t worry. My speculations are purely theoretical. I am merely examining the various implications of associating particular aspects of Jones’s legal drama to the Greimas square.
0040 What is a candidate for the alternate illusion (C’) that Jones thwarts?
Here is a scenario. As soon as a heinous crime occurs, members of the corporate media arrive on the scene. Rather than questioning the nature of the crime, they focus on one particular aspect of the event.A gun is present. A gun should not be present!
A is the heinous crime, a mind-independent being.
B’ is the presence of a firearm, a mind-dependent being.
0041 How does an automatic rifle serve as a mind-dependent being?
Media mavens have no knowledge of a firearm as a mind-independent being. A gun has heft. A gun is a tool with particular mechanical operations. A gun is a weapon and a thing that must be handled with a degree of caution
Media mavens have knowledge that a gun is taboo. The taboo transforms the gun into a mind-dependent being. The gun is a forbidden thing. Guns are banned on campus. Guns are the locus of a fixation. Guns are scary, deranged and capable of murder.
0042 Speaking against the presence of a forbidden thing (B’) is the illusion that the gun accounts for the crime (C’). Here, the mind-independent being is the heinous crime (A) that is now regarded as mind-dependent (C’) because of the gun’s dangerous capacities. The real event (A) is accounted for by the magical malevolence of the gun (C’), rather than the psychological conditions of the perpetrator (C).
The fact that the perpetrator of the heinous crime is not sentenced to death indicates that the members of the legal systemdo not consider the criminal actor responsible (C). The weapon, a forbidden thing (B’), is responsible (C’). If the forbidden thing was not present, the crime would not have occurred.
Contrasting with the illusion (C’), the delusion (D’) regards a mind-dependent being (the gun is taboo) in terms of a mind-independent being (permitted by the law). The fact that the second amendment of the American Constitution permits guns accounts for the gun breaking corporate media’s taboos against carrying firearms. The law permits a taboo to be broken.
0043 So, here is a picture of the corporate media’s campaign to exploit the heinous crime in order to advance their political agenda.
0044 This is the act of persuasion that Jones thwarts.
Perhaps, the lost opportunity cost is equivalent to Jones’s incredible fine.
0046 What does this imply?
Whatever is going on in the legal tribulation of Alex Jones, the Greimas square seems to work as a way to express the semiotic flow of an act of persuasion. This act of persuasion starts with a mind-independent being (A) and ends with a delusion (D’), where a mind-dependent being is regarded as mind-independent.
For the trials of Jones, the delusion (D) is that Jones’s questioning is the cause of psychological distress for those effected by a heinous crime. Jones’s questioning is B and mind-dependent. In a delusion (D), a mind-dependent being becomes a mind-independent being. Jones’s questioning (B) is regarded as a mind-independent cause of psychological distress (D).
For corporate media’s exploitation of a heinous crime, the delusion (D’) says that a heinous crime (A) is caused by a feature of our legal system (a mind-independent being and the target of the act of persuasion). The gun is taboo and is present at the crime (B’). The forbidden thing is responsible for the crime (C’). The second amendment of the American Constitution is responsible for the presence of the forbidden thing (D’).
Yes, the Greimas square expresses the semiotic flow of an act of persuasion.
0048 Does the Greimas square apply to the work at hand?
The book, The Great Reset and the War for the World, is printed by Skyhorse Publishing (2022). The author, Alex Jones, reviews five monographs by Klaus Schwab, who directs the World Economic Forum. Here is a list of titles, with markers and year of publication.
K1: The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016)
K2: Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018)
K3: Covid-19: The Great Reset (2020)
K4: Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and the Planet (2021)
K5: The Great Narrative for a Better Future (2022)
0049 Do the titles alone support the construction of an updated scholastic Greimas square?
I think so. Allow me to construct an association.
A: What is the focal word?
What corresponds to mind-independent being?
I spy two items that fit the bill: the fourth industrial revolution and covid-19.
Indeed, covid-19 may well be a product of one of the novel technologies of the fourth industrial revolution.
B: What is the corresponding mind-dependent being?
0050 Is it the Great Reset?
0051 If the Great Reset contrasts with the fourth industrial revolution (A), then what speaks against it?
Is it shaping the future?
Is it the question of shaping the future?
0052 Ah, the question of shaping the future must be the corresponding mind-dependent being (B). Shaping the future (B) contrasts with the fourth industrial revolution (A).
Then, the Great Reset (C) speaks against a mind-dependent shaping the future (B).
I suspect that, in the Great Reset, the mind-independent fourth industrial revolution (A) translates into a mind-dependent being that appears inevitable (C). Just as the gun, as a mind-dependent being (B), is responsible for a crime (C), the Great Reset (C) makes plans for shaping the future (B) inevitable.
0053 The last remaining element is D, the mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent. To me, D is expressed in the title of K4: stakeholder capitalism.
Here is the result.
0054 Does this work?
The fourth industrial revolution and covid-19 are mind-independent realities (A).
A mind-dependent being (B), the question of shaping the future, contrasts with A.
The Great Reset (C) speaks against (contradicts) shaping the future (B). This is like the contradiction between having a goal (B) and implementing a plan (C). The Great Reset (C) complements the fourth industrial revolution (A) (perhaps, because it institutes new technologies according to an interventional science that stands above the natural and the social sciences).
The Great Reset is a mind-independent being (perhaps, the fourth industrial revolution) regarded as a mind-dependent being (implementingplans to shape the future).
Stakeholder capitalism (D) contrasts with the Great Reset (C), contradicts the fourth industrial revolution (A), and complements the question of shaping the future (B).
0055 How does stakeholder capitalism (D) speak against the fourth industrial revolution (A)?
The fourth industrial revolution (A) invents new technologies for production, regardless of the stakeholders. Stakeholder capitalism (D) forces the global economy to work for progress, people and the planet.
Consequently, stakeholder capitalism is a mind-dependent being that is regarded asa mind-independent being (D).
Yes, D can determine the course of A.
0056 Okay, the associations work, even though I do not have a clear definition of the term, “stakeholder capitalism”.
0057 The Greimas square serves as relational structure for an act of persuasion. The act of persuasion generates an apparent mind-independent being (D) that speaks against the originating mind-independent being (A). In a way, I can say that a mind-dependent being regarded as mind-independent (D) usurps attention away from the original mind-independent being (A).
Perhaps, D ends up replacing A as mind-independent being.
0058 So far, I have considered several examples. Two are of note. One is the scripted corporate media response to a heinous crime where a gun is involved. Two follows the arc of Klaus Schwab’s titles (K1-K5).
0059 In the first example, the second amendment (a mind-dependent being regarded as a mind-independent being) (D) accounts for the gun that is responsible for the crime (C) because the forbidden thing (B) is present at the scene of a horrible crime (A).
In the second example, stakeholder capitalism (a mind-dependent being that becomes mind-independent through a global sovereign) (D) comes out of the Great Reset (C) that is an inevitable consequence of shaping the future (B) in the face of the fourth industrial revolution(and especially the crisis of covid-19) (A).
0060 These two examples demonstrate the concept that certain acts of persuasion manifest as the updated scholastic Greimas squares.
Is the Greimas square an exercise in logic?
If not, then, what is it?
I suspect that these acts of persuasion are somehow intrinsic to the nature of speech-alone talk.
Words are placeholders in systems of differences and the Greimas square is a formalized system of differences.
0061 On top of that, the updated scholastic Greimas square revives a long-standing (and currently defunct) debate among medieval schoolmen about the distinction between ens reale and ens rationis. Greimas’s formalism adds two more terms, which I label “illusion” and “delusion”.
0062 What does this have to do with Alex Jones?
Alex Jones disrupts. He disrupts globalist acts of persuasion. He calls out illusions and delusions. He is so good at it that the globalists must… well… hold him responsible for psychological damages of a real crime that he did not commit. He must be silenced!
Yes, he offends Klaus Schwab.
Of course, I don’t know whether any of this is true. I am just guessing. I am not a lawyer. I am not a confidant of anyone at the World Economic Forum.
All I do is look at ongoing situations, as well as texts, and try associate what I see into the empty slots of a purely relational structure.
0063 So, I look at Jones’s text for a disruption of the following relational structure.
0064 I find an interesting tidbit.
Right in chapter one, Jones says that Schwab’s literary and persuasion skills lie at the heart of K1. Persuasion is important. Schwab uses a three-pronged approach. Jones labels Schwab’s template as “problem, reaction and solution”.
Does this fit into the updated scholastic Greimas square?
Take a peek at my guess.
0065 Is Jones on the verge of ideating this commentary?
Or, is Jones staking out targets?
0066 In chapter two, Jones goes after the reaction (C). In the Great Reset, the modern world reacts (C) as the mind-independent being of the fourth industrial revolution (A) engenders a mind-dependent being, the plans of the World Economic Forum for shaping the future (B).
Jones asks (more or less), “What does that mean?”
Oh, in layman’s terms, the Great Reset (C) implements systems of control (B).
0067 Contributing to the layman’s disorientation, shaping the future (B) entails novel nomenclature, such as “public-private partnership”, “distributing benefits”, “managing externalities” and “human-centered future”.
Surely, these terms code for policy actions during the Great Reset (C).
So, how do we appreciate the nature these plans (B) astheir implementation (C) unfolds as systems of control?
Is illusion (C) too strong of a term?
0068 According to the structure of the Greimas square, the Great Reset (C) speaks against the World Economic Forum’s plans to shape the future (B). C contradicts B because C implements B.
Does implementation (C) tell me when a plan (B) does not work?
Definitely, especially when C implements systems of control (mind-independent beings) that are popularized as plans for shaping our future (mind-dependent beings).
0069 Does C implements B compare to a reaction (C) that contradictsa problem (B)?
The problem (B) is a mind-dependent being. For Schwab, the problem of shaping the future (B) contrasts with the fourth industrial revolution (A) in the same way that a mind-dependent being (B) contrasts with a corresponding mind-independent being (A). The problem (B) entails the formulation of a plan (B). The plan is filled with jargon, such as “public-private partnership”, whose implementation creates mind-independent beings that are regarded as mind-dependent (C). Theseapparently mind-dependent beings (C), are, like all illusions, reactionary.
An illusion (C) is a reaction (C) to a problem (B).
0070 The Great Reset (C) is a mind-independent being that is regarded as mind-dependent. So is a reaction (C) toa problem (B).
This implies that the Great Reset (C) is a reaction (C) toa problem (B) and the problem (B) turns out to be the apparent necessity to formulate a plan for shaping the future (B).
How confusing is that?
0071 (B) is not shaping the future, as much as the necessity of a plan for shaping the future.
So far, I identify C, the mind-independent being that is being portrayed as mind-dependent, as having two aspects. The mind-independent aspect (A) is the fourth industrial revolution (complete with covid-19). The mind-dependent aspect is the necessity of a plan for shaping the future (B). Consequently, C manifests as A implements B.
Maybe, that is not so confusing.
0072 Even more disturbing, Schwab’s construction of a Greimas square persuades.
Here is what I have discussed so far.
A is the fourth industrial revolution. A is an ens reale. A opens the act of persuasion.
B contrasts with A. B is an ens rationis. B defines a problem.
C contradicts (speaks against) B. C is “A implements B”. C is an ens reale that must be regarded as an ens rationis. C defines a reaction to a problem.
0073 So, the Great Reset (C) reacts to the World Economic Forum’s formulation of a plan for shaping the figure (B) by implementing the plan.
It sounds right.
0074 But, if the Great Reset (C) occupies the same relational position as illusion (C), as well as reaction (C), then who knows what horrors what horrors will follow when the hands of the operation (C) perform in service to the brains who formulate the plans (B)? After all, the hands of the operation (C) work the levers of technologies with demiurgic capacities (A). These technologies can make deserts bloom. They can make humans irrelevant. What happens when the brains formulate plans to turn humans into livestock?
Of course, you have to read Jones’s own words to appreciate the authentic literary impact.
0075 On the one hand, Jones raises good questions that make Schwab’s act of persuasion less convincing.
On the other hand, Schwab has more rhetorical tricks up his sleeve.
Yes, Schwab portrays the Great Reset (C), not as a reaction, but as an alternative, to a far more dangerous illusion.
Indeed, the Greimas square for books K1 through K5 mirrors another Greimas square, where the imagined problem (B) is that there is no plan to shape the future. Consequently, the reaction to the lack of a plan (C) leads to less than optimal solutions (D).
0076 Here is a picture.
0077 When the necessity of a plan for shaping the future (B) looks in the mirror, it (B) sees no plans for the future (Bm).
When the Great Reset (C) looks in the mirror, it (C) sees chaos (Cm).
0078 Wow. Schwab looks great in the mirror of his own imagined horror show.
Yes, Schwab’s Greimas square (K1-K5) is an alternative to the image that Klaus sees in the mirror of fate.
The conclusion is obvious.
Stakeholder capitalism (D) is preferable to less than optimum solutions (D).
The implications are less than obvious.
0079 I wonder, “When Alex Jones questions Schwab’s Greimas square (K1-K5), what happens in the Greimas square in Schwab’s mirror?”