The Two Actualities of the “Be Little Men” Movement

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

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

Figure 1

0002 What is marxist righteousness1?

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

The specter of “capitalism”?

Das Kapital?

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

Wrap your cap around that.

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

Allow no substitutes.

Substitutions squander the purity of the projection.

0004 What does this mean to me3?

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

The slogan isolates the guilty.

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

Now, other labels serve as slogans2a.

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

Figure 2

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

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

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

0007 Is marxism a modern version of an ancient religion?

Surely, early civilizations sacrifice humans to their gods.

Remember the old adage?

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

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

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

Marxist righteousness calls the fellow, a “capitalist”.

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

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

0008 What else does this imply?

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

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

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

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

A Primer on the Category Based Nested Form

A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

How To Define the Word “Religion”

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

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


Comments on Armand Maurer’s Essay (2004) “Darwin, Thomists and Secondary Causality” (Opening)

Notes on Text

This work comments on an article by an expert in medieval philosophy, Armand Maurer, published in The Review of Metaphysics (volume 57(3), 2004, Pages 506-511).  My goal is to comment on this work using the category-based nested form and other relational models within the tradition of Charles Peirce.

‘Words that belong together’ are denoted by single quotes or italics.

Dates are in Ubaid Zero Prime.  0 U0’ equates to 5800 B.C., around 7800 years ago.  0 U0’ roughly marks the first appearance of the Ubaid culture in southern Mesopotamia.

Prerequisites: A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

Table of Contents

Section Three, Aquinas   0001

Section Two, Suarez     0024

Section One, Darwin   0027

Section Four, Maritain     0055

Ramifications     0065


Comments on Armand Maurer’s Essay (2004) “Darwin, Thomists and Secondary Causality” (Long Preparation)

What are primary and secondary causalities?

An expert in Medieval Philosophy, Armand Maurer, traces their history, backwards from Charles Darwin.  He publishes an article in The Review of Metaphysics (volume 57(3), 2004, pages 506-511).

Darwin thinks that his theory of evolution endowed living beings with secondary causalities more profound and subtle than hitherto contemplated.  Creatures have the ability to produce new substances on their own accord.  That new substance is a new species or genus.

Before this, philosophers never confront the question of evolution.  So, secondary causality belongs to creatures, in accordance to the Will and Presence of God, the primary cause.  Secondary causes are living creatures getting on with their lives.

As it turns out, that is also what living creatures do according to Darwin’s theory of evolution.  The difference is that their survival is subject to natural selection, especially in regards to exploiting their niche.

Surely, there must be consistency here, besides that both medieval philosophers and the educated folk of Darwin’s time use the terms, primary and secondary causes.

Maurer ends with Maritain, who publishes and exploration of the role of primary and secondary causes in Darwin’s schema.

The introduction and five parts follow the Maurer’s arguments, not point by point, but according to the timeframe that he articulates.  The story begins with the Book of Causes, a Neoplatonic work written around Baghdad a few decades after the death of the Abbasid caliph, Al-Mamun.


Magi Bear Witness (Part 4)

The zodiac sign of Capricorn serves as a normal context3.

In the previous blog, I consider the imagery of Capricorn in light of the first singularity.  Capricorn associates to the manifestation of civilization in southern Mesopotamia after the first singularity.  Surely, such a claim fits with the standard mythic connection between Capricorn, sovereign power and order.

Several weeks have passed since the conjunction.  I may now look back and assess how the sublunary realm2 appears to manifest the potential of this conjunction between Saturn and Pluto1.  Saturn is the titanic god of time, itself.  Pluto rules over the stark duality of death and rebirth, along with all its resonances, such as darkness and light.

I ask the following question in the middle of March 2020.

Is there an event that brings, to light, an incident that says, “Your time is up.”?

Such an incident would conform to the anticipated actuality2.

There is a candidate.

Earlier, doctors in the city of Wuhan sound warnings.  On January 12, 2020, they are suppressed and ordered to sign self-effacing documents.  Why?  The city prepares for a pre-lunar new year banquet.  The feast will be the send-off for millions of its citizens, who plan to return to their hometowns and villages to celebrate the new-year holidays.  This is the year of the rat.

Nine days later, on January 21, 2020, government authorities place Wuhan and adjacent cities under lockdown.  Wuhan surrenders to a plague.  The disease rapidly spreads throughout the world.  Eight weeks later, quarantines and lockdowns occur in South Korea, Italy, France, Spain and the United States of America.

Here is my assessment.

Figure 4. Dynamics of astrology

Surely, there is no instrumental or material cause acting between the normal context3 and actuality2, as well as between the potential1 and actuality2.  Direct causality is the stuff of modern science.  Disciplinary languages, mechanical and mathematical models, as well as measurement and observation are imbued with the character of actuality2.  But, actuality2is not all there is.

I cannot smell, taste, touch, see and hear a normal context3 or its potential1.  Yet, I sense their relevance.  I cannot observe or measure them.  Or can I?

I can observe and measure the Saturn-Pluto conjunction.  Isn’t that real?

Yes, but I cannot bring the conjunction1 into relation with actuality2 without a triadic relation.  A normal context3 is needed in order to bring the potential of the superlunary event1 into relation with the actuality of a sublunary event2.  A sublunary event2 emerges from (and situates) the potential of the superlunary event1.  The fall of Wuhan, and all its sequelae2, emerges from (and situates) the potential of the Pluto-Saturn conjunction1, in the normal context of the sign of Capricorn3.

This nested form belongs to modern astrology.  It touches base with the views of ancient astrologers, such as the magi, the wise men in Matthew’s gospel.  It parallels primary and secondary causation, familiar to medieval and modern scholastics.  There is more to the world than the category of secondness, the realm of actuality.  Humans cogitate in the way of the category-based nested form.  Both modern and ancient astrologers offer the newborn Christian a gift, an insight that bears witness to a relational structure, common to all and endowed by our Creator.


Magi Bear Witness (Part 3)

But, aren’t there two actualities?

There are events on earth.  There are events in the heavens.

One belongs to actuality2.  The other is held by potential1.

So, how does the modern astrologer, like the magi of old, offer the newborn Christian a gift?

Recently, a particular set of celestial events unite modern and ancient astrologies.  Modern astrology considers the influence of celestial bodies that cannot be viewed with the naked eye, such as the dwarf planet, Pluto.  Premodern astrology considers planets visible to the unaided eye, from Mercury to Saturn.

The notable event is the conjunction of Pluto and Saturn in Capricorn on January 12, 2020.  This particular conjunction is one step in a minuet involving Pluto, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, dancing on the dividing line between Capricorn and Aquarius.Here is the nested form for this celestial event.

Figure 3


Magi Bear Witness (Part 2)

The indirect causality of astrology, as well as of primary and secondary causes, is captured by the four statements embedded in the category-based nested form.

Let me consider astrology.

An actuality2 occurs our sublunary world.

Its normal context3 and potential1 pertains to the superlunary sphere.Here is how that looks.

Figure 2: Dynamics of astrology

Magi Bear Witness (Part 1)

According to the gospel of Matthew, after Jesus is born, wise men arrive the East, following a “star”.  Of course, the term, “star”, must be broadly construed, pertaining to the superlunary domes, as opposed to the sublunary planes.  The motions of superlunary beings represent ‘something’ to the magi, corresponding to ‘something’ in their sublunary situation.

They read the “star” as a sign of a birth of a king.

The magi are “magical” is so far as this: There is no direct cause whereby a divine superlunary being activates, moves, arranges or manipulates ‘something’ in our sublunary realm.  Yet, causation appears to be present.

In Comments on Fr. Thomas White’s Essay (2019), “Thomism and the New Evangelization”, available at smashwords.com, one finds a parallel with primary and secondary causation.  Primary causation entails God’s Will and Presence.  Secondary causation pertains to God’s creatures.  Creatures exhibit secondary causation, without compromising the primacy of God.

The “magic” at the heart of modern and premodern astrology re-articulates a foundational distinction in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas.

How do these indirect causalities operate?

Here is the picture.