05/18/23

Looking at Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 1 of 4)

0001 According to Neoplatonic legend, the descent of the soul starts with a small immaterial gem resting on an undefinable pillow in the presence of transcendental beauty. Then, a trap door opens and the little source of illuminationbegins to fall. As it descends, it accrues matter. Matter enters form.

One may say that the matter is evil and the soul, good, and conclude that the immortal soul becomes encased in corruptible matter. But, the story is more complicated, because the term, “matter” slyly includes the capacity to become entangled with purely relational being. Matter holds the capacity for meaning. Matter substantiates form. So Christians, following the complication, witness the baby as bearing a message. The message? Baptize me.

0002 The book before me is Brian Kemple’s The Intersection of Semiotics and Phenomenology: Peirce and Heidegger in Dialogue, published in 2019 by Walter de Gruyter Press (Boston/Berlin). The masterwork is dedicated to the memory of John Deely (1942-2017 AD), who served as Kemple’s professor.

0003 The book presents a complex argument. I, a simpleton, fixate on the titular word, “intersection”.

For me, the term has a technical definition, as formulated in the chapter on message in the e-book How To Define The Word “Religion” (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues). An intersection is a single actuality composed of two actualities, each with its own category-based nested form.

Say what?

See A Primer on the Category-based Nested Form.

0004 A photon is an example of an intersection of two actualities: a wave and a particle. The normal context of a diffraction apparatus₃ brings wave properties of light₂ into relation with the potential of ‘observations of wavelengths’₁. The normal context of a metal plate₃ brings particle properties of light₂ into relation with potential ‘observations of the photo-electric effect’₁.

0005 Here is a picture.

0006 Here is another way to look at the photon as intersection.

0007 In the following blogs, I will endeavor to visualize whether Kemple’s use of the term, “intersection”, coheres with this technical definition.

In order to do so, I will locate two category-based nested forms, one for both Peirce and one for Heidegger, and see whether the two actualities meld into one.

05/17/23

Looking at Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 2 of 4)

0008 The intersection is a technical term describing a single actuality constituted by two seemingly independent actualities.

Now I collect two nested forms from prior works by Razie Mah.

0009 For Peirce, I consider A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction. Point 0062 presents a three level interscope, depicting Peirce’s social construction. Here is a diagram of the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.

0010 The content-level actuality_2a is the discovery that signs are triadic relations_2a. Triadic relations are luminous_2aand Peirce cannot situate that luminosity_2b within the modern philosophies of his day. This difficulty_2b situates the content-level actuality_2a and demands social construction_3c. Peirce realizes that three categories contextualize all experience_2c(because all experience utilizes signs_2a). The categories of firstness, secondness and thirdness are discussed in detail in chapter four of Kemple’s book.

0011 For Heidegger, I turn to Comments on Alexander Dugin’s Book (2012) The Fourth Political Theory. Point 0037 presents a three-level interscope for Heidegger’s construction of Being (Sein). Once again, the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality captures my attention.

Here is a diagram.

The normal context of inzwischen_2c (in between-ness) brings the actuality of Dasein_2b (the realization that Being is there (da-)) into relation with the possibilities inherent in Sein_2a (Being Itself).

0012 For these two virtual nested forms to serve as the nested forms for an intersection, the perspective-level actualities_2c, must take on the character of thirdness (over and above their location in secondness). This makes sense in so far as the perspective_c level corresponds to thirdness, the realm of normal contexts.

The same “taking on” applies to the content-level actualities_2a. They take on the character of firstness (over and beyond their location in secondness). This makes sense because the content_a level corresponds to firstness, the realm of possibility.

0013 Here is the resulting intersection.

05/16/23

Looking at Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 3 of 4)

0014 Unbeknownst to author, Razie Mah proposes a technical definition of the term, “intersection”, that adorns the title of Brian Kemple’s book. An intersection is a single actuality composed of two actualities. Every intersection is riddled with unresolved, and unresolvable, contradictions. The intersection is inherently mysterious. The philosopher strives to delineate these contradictions, not to resolve them.

0015 Here is the intersection derived from Peirce’s social construction and Heidegger’s construction of Being in the prior blogs.

0017 To me, the coincidence is amazing. Kemple identifies the category-based structure that brings Peirce and Heidegger together and, in the subtitle, suggests a name for the single actuality. The name is “dialogue”.

I wonder if “dialogue” is the same as “delineating a union of two actualities without resolving their contradictions”.

The word that labels the single actuality should intimate the difficulty of Kemple’s task and perhaps, the genius of his approach.

0018 At first, Kemple tempts the reader by mentioning an author who, early on, inspires both Peirce and Heidegger. A manuscript by Thomas of Erfurt, long attributed to the scholastic philosopher Scotus, discusses modes of signification for a speculative grammar. Speculative grammar? Look at the above figure. Should the single actuality be labeled, “speculative grammar”?

Yes, Peirce and Heidegger are inspired by Thomas of Erfurt.

0019 After that tease, Kemple devotes a division (chapters two and three) to Heidegger, followed by a division (chapters four and five) to Peirce. In these two divisions, Kemple introduces a term that takes a step beyond the German compound-words of Umwelt and Lebenswelt. The Umwelt is the significant world for each type of animal. The Lebenswelt denotes the world of signification for our kind, to which I add a caveat.

There are two Lebenswelts. The first is the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (characterized by hand- and hand-speech talk). The second is our current Lebenswelt (characterized by speech-alone talk). In one more step, Kemple introduces the compound-word, “Bildendwelt”, for civilizations within our current Lebenswelt, such as the one discussed in Looking at Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein’s Book (2021) A Hunter-Gather’s Guide to the 21^st Century.

05/15/23

Looking at Brian Kemple’s Book (2019) “The Intersection” (Part 4 of 4)

0020 The term, Bildendwelt, sounds like the concatenation of the words, “Bilden” and “dwelt”, as in the English statement, “I dwelt in that Bilden, before it came crashing down.”

In order to appreciate my humor, consider the October 1, 2022, blog at www.raziemah.com, titled, “Fantasia in G Minor: A speech written for Gunnar Beck MEP”.

Da Bilden is coming down!

Oh, I meant to say… the Bildendwelt makes no sense at all.

0021 So much for wordplay.

The compound-word, Bildendwelt stands, waiting to be refined in the furnace of postmodern use.

0022 The third division of Kemple’s book weaves together divisions one and two, titled World and Sign, into an intersection. In the process, Kemple focuses on two elements in the following figure: Sein_1V and sign_1H.

0023 To me, Kemple’s focus is remarkable, because Being_1V and triadic relations_1H are crucial for bringing our lineage from Umwelt, to Lebenswelt, and further into Bildendwelt. Indeed, I wonder whether these compound terms should be used to label the single actuality of Peirce’s experience_2H and Dasein_2V.

0024 But, let me not ignore one further possibility, the single actuality is us.

Here is a list of labels for the single actuality.

0025 Now, I can portray our descent.

Imagine us, as purely spiritual illuminations, perched on undefinable pillows, in the presence of transcendent beauty in an era when all time is now. A trap door opens and we descend into Being and Time. As we fall, we accrete two actualities, coinciding with Peirce’s experience following his realization that signs are real_1H and with Heidegger’s vision of Dasein_1V. These actualities are full of contradictions.

As we descend through Being and Time, we accrue World and Sign. We pass through our primordial Umwelt, the Lebenswelt that we evolve in, the first singularity, our current Lebenswelt and now, our Bildendwelt. Descent with modification. Then we are born, in the present, and each one of us bears a message. Baptize me.

0026 What does baptism do?

Baptism cleanses us of Gestell, the grammars of our world, carrying temptation, misdirections and lures that entrap us, confound us, and, in the end, convince us that the truth can never be found.

How so?

Truth is just a spoken word. We create our own “truth”. Spoken words are merely projections of our Innerwelt upon that which is outside ourselves. After temptation fixes our occasions of sin, after our own projections redirect the projections of others and weave a veil of reality, and after we begin to believe in our own self-divinizing speculative grammar, we construct artifacts that validate our spoken worlds. We build our own prison. Heidegger calls it, Gestell.

0027 When the waters of baptism pour over an infant, the baby often cries. The baby represents all of us.

The waters of baptism disturb. Dasein_2V! We enter a world perfused with signs. We are welcomed into a world where the material finds meaning in the immaterial. The human niche is the potential of triadic relations. How all encompassing will Peirce’s experience_2H be? We stand on the threshold of a new age of understanding.

Kemple offers the reader a portrait of John Deely’s vision, in a book that lives up to its title, in more ways than one. Bravo!

04/29/23

Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind” (Part 1 of 17)

0001 Professor Gad Saad is an expert in applying evolutionary psychology to contemporary consumer behavior. He publishes a book, titled, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. The cover of the book is adorned with a graphic. A hand holds one end of a thread that goes on to become a line drawing of the human neocortex. Is the thread going into the head? Or, is the thread (of common sense) coming out of the head?

I suppose I have to read the book to find out.

0002 Saad gets into the push-pull operation in chapter four, titled, “Anti-Science, Anti-Reason and Illiberal Movements”. He lists four contemporary academic beings… er… parasites: postmodernism, social constructivism, radical feminism and transgender activism. Each movement… er… parasite is founded on a demonstrable falsehood. Each desires to be free from reality.

For these comments, I use gender as an example.

0003 In order to diagram these statements, I consult A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction. These primers, by Razie Mah, are available at smashwords and other e-book venues. They are not long. They are very informative.

0004 A parasite feeds off a host.

The host goes with the content-level. The parasite places content in an alternate situation.

0005 I begin with the host. The host takes the actuality of men and women_2a, which emerges from a biological distinction (which, in turn is an actuality in another nested form)_1a in the normal context of an orthodox view_3a. The term, biological distinction_1a, is short for the potential of sexual dimorphism, as expressed in humans_1a. Roughly, “ortho” means “right” and “dox” means “doctrine”.

0006 Obviously, this content-level is scientifically, reasonably and liberally situated by cognitive psychology and its companion discipline, evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists explain the findings of cognitive psychologists in terms of natural selection and genetics: adaptations and phenotypes.

0007 The social constuctivist approach runs opposition to cognitive (and evolutionary) psychology. The social constructivist claims to situate the orthodox view, with the possibility that biological distinctions are irrelevant. Instead, only the human will is relevant. Gender is a personal choice. Gender is an act of the will.

The resulting situation-level nested form looks like this.

04/28/23

Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind” (Part 2 of 17)

0008 Now, people talk about men and women all the time. They act within a traditional framework_3a where ideas about men and women_2a emerge from (and situate) the potential of sexual dimorphism, as expressed in humans_1a. Explicit ideas_2a can be articulated in speech-alone talk. Conversations may be recorded for scientific inquiry. Implicit ideas_2aproduce expressive phenomena, such as blushing or averting one’s gaze, that can be observed and measured using instrumentation (surveillance cameras).

Consequently, cognitive psychology_3b virtually situates the same content-level nested form as social construction_3b.

0009 The difference is obvious. Social constructionism does not observe and measure_1b attitudes and behaviors associated with the orthodox view_3a. Rather, social construction_3b virtually situates othodox views_3a with a situation-level potential_1b, the human will_1b, which is an explicit abstraction concerning human nature.

Saad calls the forced choice between the scientific potential of observations and measurements_1b and the constructionist potential of the human will_1b, “intellectual terrorism”.

Well, terrorists hold people and things hostage. What do social constructionists hold hostage?

Ah, it must be observations and measurements_1b.

Is that what makes these postmodern movements anti-science?

0010 But, there is more.

The content-level is also virtually situated by traditional formulations about the nature of the content-level. In the West, these forms come from churches, for the most part. They are very old, but still remain within our current Lebenswelt.

0011 The normal context of traditional doctrines_3b brings the actuality of marriage and the family_2b into relation with the potential of male-female pair bonding_1b.

Isn’t that reasonable?

The relational logic of marriage is portrayed in A Primer on the Family, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Nature appears to express its own will. There is a natural intention_1b (male-female pair bonding) that virtually situates a biological distinction_1a. Plus, that natural intention_1b appears at the very start of the foundational text for Christian civilization. Remember Adam and Eve?

0012 What is another thing that social constructionists hold hostage?

Ah, it must be male-female pair bonding.

0013 The possibility of male-female pair bonding_1b underlies marriage and family_2b in the normal context of tradition_3b. Plus, male-female pair bonding_1b emerges from (and situates) the entire content_a level. Male-female pair bonding_1baccounts for the entire content_a level. It is perfectly reasonable that human bodies are adaptations into the niche of male-female pair bonding.

This is what makes postmodern movements anti-reason.

04/27/23

Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind” (Part 3 of 17)

0014 So far, in looking at chapter four of Saad’s book and using gender as the example, I re-articulate some of the author’s claims using the category-based nested form.

Postmodern illiberal movements situate orthodox views about men and women_2a with the concept that gender is a personal choice_2b.

0015 Plus, postmodern illiberal movements_3b exclude both traditional formulations_3b and the disciplinary language of cognitive psychology_3b.

On what theoretical grounds do they exclude?

0016 Well, if they have no theoretical grounds, then they would be intellectual terrorists.

But, if they do, then what would put the normal context of social construction_3b into perspective_3c?

Well, the perspective must be a postmodern illumination_3c, because the situation-level normal context_3b displaces both science and reason. The situation tells me that gender is a personal choice_2b. An third-level actuality_2c must put that personal choice_2b into perspective. If the world_2c is “naively innocent”, then that perspective empowers the situation-level actuality_2b. If the world_2c is “treacherously corrupt”, then that perspective explains why the situation-level actuality_2b may never be realized (without the assistance of a benevolent being with sovereign power).

0017 Here is a picture of the dark side of the postmodern illumination_3c.

0018 The slogan of “toxic masculinity”_2c enters the picture as emerging from (and situating) the potential that contextualizes the situation level_1c. Men are oppressors. Women are oppessed. And, that is all there is to it. The actuality_2c emanating from the potential of ‘the patriarchy’_1c is an illumination of darkness_3c, in the Manichaean sense of the term, “darkness”.

Of course, this perspective is counter-intutitive in the sense that is incomplete. The problem? The other half of the illumination goes unspoken. An illumination_3c of light, as opposed to darkness, remains unspoken.

0019 Here is a picture of the naively innocent side of the postmodern illumination_3c.

0020 Naive and innocent sovereign acts and decrees have the potential_1c of mitigating the dominating and inflexible patriarchy_1c. Of course, this requires sovereign power_1c.

0021 What happens when ‘sovereign acts and decrees’_1c counters ‘the patriarchy’_1c?

Men are humbled_2c and women are liberated_2c in the normal context of the light-filled normal context of postmodern illumination_3c.

04/26/23

Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind” (Part 4 of 17)

0022 In order to appreciate the three-level interscope derived in the last blog, I consider the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility. This turns the column in firstness, consisting of elements 1a, 1b and 1c into a category-based nested form.

0023 Here is a picture.

0024 Postmodern gender studies only proclaims the dark illumination_3c. The light illuminations_3c, where liberation_2coccurs, cannot be articulated, because humiliation_2c and liberation_2c emerge from (and situate) sovereign acts and decrees_1c. What does the postmodern (il)liberal gain from bringing politics and policies into the picture?

So, the proclamation of the dark illumination_3c fills the airwaves.

0023 In the normal context of the patriarchy_1c, the relevance of the humans will_1b virtually emerges from (and situates) the irrelevance of biological distinctions_1a, including the potential of sexual dimorphism in humans_1a.

Consequently, men choose to gender themselves as males based on human will_1b, rather than the potentials of scientific observations and measurements_1b and the reasonable (natural law) conclusion that men and women are adapted to pair-bonding_1b. The human will_1b does not virtually emerge from a biological distinction_1a. Rather, the human will_1b decides how to situate biological distinctions_1a, where biological distinctions_1a correspond to the potential inherent in male and female phenotypes_1a.

0024 In short, the situation-level potential of the relevance of the human will_1b veils the relevance of observations and measurements_1b (in cognitive science_3b) and the relevance of pair-bonding_1b (from traditional moral and religious fomulations_3b).

What happens next?

According to the normal context of social construction_3b, if neither science_3b nor religion_3b are relevant, then content-level of orthodox views_3a should no longer serve as subject matter. The content-level is eclipsed.

0025 Here is a picture.

0026 What does this imply?

Discussions about men and women_2a, one of the favorite topics in bars and coffeeshops near college campuses, are no longer pertinent.

There is a new content-level in town.

04/25/23

Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind” (Part 5 of 17)

0027 Chapter Five is titled, “Campus Lunacy: The Rise of the Social Justice Warrior”.

I continue with gender as the exemplar concern. In the perspective-level of the previous diagram, being oppressed_2c is a feminine trait_2c. On the situation level, the normal context of social construction_3b brings the actuality of gender as a personal choice_2b into relation with the potential of human will_1b. The human will_1b is so relevant, that it makes biological distinctions_1a irrelevant.

Once biological distinctions_1a are irrelevant, then all orthodox views_3a of men and women_2a no longer matter. Orthodox views_3a concerning the biological distinctions_1a between men and women_2a have been around a long time. The first great epic of the Greek language, The Iliad, revolves around that distinction. Paris kidnaps Helen and brings her to Troy and triggers the Trojan War. The unique masterpiece of the Jewish and Christian tradition starts in the Garden of Eden with the distinction between man and woman.

0028 Social construction replaces any need for the so-called “Western canon”.

Indeed, social construction offers an alternate content level, allowing me to depict the following speculative diagram, based on the title of chapter five.

0029 Yes, once feminism triumps, the situation level shifts to the content level. A new “humanities”_2a must be constructed_3a in order to aesthetically represent the potential of the relevance of the human will_1a (over biological distinctions_1a) and to politically portray gender as a personal choice_2a.

There goes the Iliad and the Bible. Fare thee well, Western civilization.

0030 Of course, the alternative literature of the nouvelle academics must be situated by the patriarchy_1b, as the potential from which arises the unspeakable horrors of well… those throwbacks who still are talking about the biological differences between men and women.

Call them “scientists”. Call them “humanists”. Call them “religious”. They are overruled by the critique of dark illumination_3b. Ssocial construction_3a, not orthodox views_3a, should define the content level.

0031 Remember the so-called College of Arts and Sciences?

Let us now advocate for a new coalition of social inquiries.

May we call it the College of Social Constuction?

0032 Take a closer look at the above figure.

Several postmodern themes intertwine.

0033 On the content level, radical individualism predominates. For other brands of social construction, replace “gender” with “the issue du jour”.

0034 On the situation level, Marxism stands out. The “patriarchy” is the “system”. The “system” is a term that substitutes for “capitalism”, along with its attendant division between the “bourgeois” and the “proletariat”. The “system” injects a fantastic fluidity into the Marxist tradition. A phantasmic dyad_2b of dark illumination_3b always manifests as oppressor and oppressed. Another term for dark illumination_3b is “critical theory”_3b.

0035 On the perspective level, American big government (il)liberalism blossoms. Who provides the protection_1c and the privileged status for the oppressed_2c? It is the federal government. Another term for protection_1c is “safe space”. Another term for light illumination_3c is “social justice”_3c. The lawyer who sues for the causes of the ones privileged to be called, “oppressed”, is a “social-justice warrior”.

04/24/23

Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind” (Part 6 of 17)

0036 Chapter six is titled, “Departures from Reason: Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome”.

Can social construction_3a adequately replace the orthodox views_3a that incoming university students already hold when they enter their dormitories?

The answer is “yes”, since orthodox views_3a are outlawed from the start.

Colleges say to their incoming classes, “Scrap any right doctrines that you think you have. We are here to inform you of what you should think.”

Thus, postmodern college education begins with de-indoctrination.

They continue, “Do not concern yourselves with what your parents, grandparents, and other relatives have told you about the world. Do not recall what any inquisitorial throwback has instructed you about religion. These are the discourses of the master_1b. Your human will_1a is the only relevant parameter in the social construction_3a of your personal choices_2a.”

0037 What does this imply?

Academics in the College of Social Construction do not want to hear what the students already think, because their orthodox views_3a are already irrelevant.

To me, this introduces what Saad labels as “the Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome”.

Postmodern academics do not want to encounter the world outside their safe space_3c. They do not want to hear orthodox views_3a because such views are already excluded from academic discourse founded on the normal context of social construction_3a.

0038 This is a syndrome, because we do not know the underlying causes, other than disdain for fools who cannot wrap their rigid minds around the normal context of social construction_3a.

0039 Here is slower way to depict what postmodern academics do not want to see and what happens when they hide content that they do not want to see.

They do not want to see the content-level for the following two-level interscope.

In particular, orthodox views_3a, which are typically situated (and also refined) by humanities_3b and the sciences_3b, deserve contempt and ridicule. Such ridicule is biting. Such contempt has be vicious. After all, what is to stop the humanities_3band the sciences_3b from excluding social constuction_3b?

Do different rules apply to the humanities_3b and the sciences_3b as opposed to the social constructions_3b?

That is a very good question.

0039 According to Saad, postmodern academics is parasitic. They are feeding off a host.

Who is the host?

Presumably, the host is the one providing students with orthodox views_3a. Who is the host? Is the host, the student’s parents, extended family, local community, church and so on?

Why would they send their sons and daughters to a college where social construction_3a institutionally excludes their own orthodox views_3a, which they taught to their children?

0040 Plus, why does Saad add the adjective, “ostrich”.

Well, an ostrich does not like danger. So, the ostrich has been rumored to place its head in a burrow in order to not see an unwanted danger. Of course, this does not make any sense in terms of evolutionary adaptations. The ostrich has huge legs. What are they for if not running away from danger?

So, this term, “ostrich”, serves as a metaphor for a creature who will bury its head in order not to see something that it knows that it is not supposed to see.

0041 That creature belongs to the College of Social Construction.

So, what is the thing that the College of Social Construction knows that it is not supposed to see?

Well, the answer to that question already appears.

Plus, the answer will appear again.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: Intimations of Political Philosophy