0154 What a banner!

0155 The evolutionary anthropologist, Steven Mithen, publishes a book in 2024 with the full title, The Language Puzzle: Piecing Together The Six-Million Year Story Of How Words Evolve (BasicBooks: New York).  The book purports to describe the evolution of “language”.  But, what is “language”?  Is language the sole province of speech?  Of course not, deaf communities practice so-called “sign-language”.  I call this practice, “fully linguistic hand-talk”.

0156 Despite the reality that language can be performed in two modalities, manual-brachial gesture and voice, Mithen rules out the gestural origins of language.  Consequently, he faces the challenge of portraying the vocal origins of language.

0157 The problem?

Consider the following comparison.

0158 Two features are integral to language.

The first is displacement.  “Displacement” means that “the referent of the word does not have to be present”.

The second is symbolic operations. Symbols are sign-relations whose sign-objects are based on habit, convention, law and so forth.  Within any symbolic order, a symbol must be sufficiently different from any other symbol as to be readily recognized.  A finite set of symbols constitutes a symbolic order.  Symbolic operations constellate within a symbolic order.  One name for such symbolic operations is “grammar”.

0159 Archaeological evidence for bipedalism predates 3.5 Myr (million of years ago).  At this time, vocalizations are not only involuntary, but they tell everyone that a referent is present. It is the opposite of displacement.  Vocalizations denote placements.

Of course, that means that involuntary calls may be labeled indexes, in so far as the call indicates a presence.  That means that involuntary calls are indexes.

But, an involuntary call cannot be called a linguistic sign-relation whose sign object is determined by pointing, contiguity, cause and effect and so forth.  And, that is an index, too.

0161 Okay, that may be confusing.

Vocal calls are indexes in the same way that an emergency alarm is an index.  The alarm cannot tell me much more than “an emergency is happening”.  That is not displacement.

Manual-brachial gestures can point to something, even when that something is not present (like the location of the sunrise).  Manual-brachial word gestures allow displacement.

0162 In regards to symbolic operations, consider taking the metaphor, a word is like a piece in a jigsaw puzzle,literally.  Then, say, 1.7 million years before present time, while I am digging tubers with my team, not far from the forest’s edge, a vulture lands in a nearby tree and one of us notices that… uh oh… there is a jaguar in that tree.  The vulture sees the jaguar.  The jaguar eyes the little hominins.  We know why the vulture decides to land.  The vulture wants to see what happens.

Everyone gathers what tubers they have into leaf-baskets.  The elder of the team signs the following gestures to me and I reply.

0163 Elder signs [point-YOU][image-RUN][point-RIGHT][image-THROW].

Then in reply, I say, [point-ME][raise ROCK].

0164 Each iconic and indexal gesture-word has already been honed through usage to be sufficiently different from any other word-gesture (in our team-oriented lexicon) as to be instantly recognized.  So, the imagery and the indications snap together into one Gestalt, shared by both elder and myself.

Of course, Mithen discusses displacement and grammar, but not in this manner.  He proposes that displacement for the vocal channel involves synaesthesia, that is, cross-modal sensing.  But, how would this apply to the problems faced by teams, while extracting food under dangerous conditions (which Michael Tomasello labels “collaborative obligatory foraging”)?

0165 So, what is the key point?

Mithen claims to be solving a six-million year old process. But, his metaphor of the jigsaw puzzle, when taken literally, takes us through the period that stretches from the start of bipedalism to the domestication of fire.  This corresponds to Michael Tomasello’s “period two”.

Indeed, Mithen is not aware that his choice of metaphors undermines his claim against the gestural origin of language.

0166 Is that sort of funny?

In what way?

Technically, before the domestication of fire, hand-talk is protolinguistic.  Each team has its own protolanguage.  Plus, this protolanguage is not fully linguistic because it does not permit grammatically correct counter-intuitive statements, such as:

[imageTREE][point to EYES][roll EYEs back and forth]

0167 Oh, yes.  Our kind evolves in a surveillance society.  And we are on the menu.

The trees have eyes and are watching.

0066 Before I step further into chapter one, I must take a guess as to where Hegel’s term, “synthesis” resides.

In one way, “synthesis” resides in the normal context₃.  In another way, it resides in the potential₁, along with ‘truth’₁.  Since, the [substance] of [wealth and power]₂ emerges from (and situates) its potential₁, then there must be something more than ‘honesty’₁ in ‘truth’₁,  ‘Truth’₁ must be accompanied with ‘something substantial’, that is, ‘synthesis’₁.

Here is the resulting nested form.

0067 Chapter one opens with a question, “Who cannot handle the truth?”

May I point to those with capital and organizational excess, as well as to those with social influence and institutional excess?

Oh, those excesses.  It seems as if the former pulls the contiguity upwards by reifying [wealth] and the latter drags the contiguity downwards by reifying [power].

0068 Zizek, for his part, associates “truth” with a normative picture of a state of accord.  Accord of what?  Accumulation and order?  Thesis and antithesis?  As such, truth₁… and its synthesis₁… develops within a particular historical reality₂… that is… a particular civilizational moment₂.

0069 Does Lacan’s term, jouissance, associate to the potential of ‘truth and synthesis’₁?

It may well do so.  For Christians, the [substance] that is contiguous with Father and Son is historically contingent. Why?  One God has only one opportunity to actually enter the flow of the eternal present.  If God enters the flow of the eternal present multiple times, then each time He produces a new dyad, a new historically contingent “timestamp”, if you will.  Each timestamp is a divine mediation.

0070 It is not that timestamps do not abound in Christian… er… Jewish revelation.  There is Adam (corresponding to the start of the Ubaid archaeological period), Noah (touching base with the Uruk), and Abraham (pointing to the end of the Sumerian civilization), followed by Moses and King David.  Then, the exile to Babylon, followed by a return. Construction on the Second Temple begins.  During this time, the five books of Moses come together like never before. Yet, no one imagines that the Pentateuch would one day be labeled, “the Old Testament”.

0071 All these timestamps constitute a thesis, and Jesus marks the antithesis.  

Now, even though the substance (that is, the contiguity) of Father and Son₂ will change, depending on the winds of the Holy Spirit₃, the potential of ‘truth and synthesis’₁ becomes more and more apparent.  The synthesis₁ includes the potential of one God₁.  The potential of one God₁ reminds me of Zizek’s use of the term, “parallax”.  From one location, I see the Father as matter and thesis.  I see the Son as form and antithesis.  But, from another location, the Speaker is matter and the Word is form.  Thesis and antithesis depends on where I stand.

Here, the terms, “thesis” and “antithesis” are bound, into a thing₂, by a substance.  That substance includes [begat] and [dies with].  Father and Son are two real elements that, in theory, are distinct and separable, just like the real elements of matter and form are theoretically distinct and separable.  But, they cannot be separated without losing sight of the thing itself₂.

0072 When we lose track of the thing itself₂, we cannot understand.

Where have the normal context₃ and potential₁ gone?

0073 Zizek mentions an “irreducible oscillation”.  Here, the oscillation is among matter [and] form₂, particle [and] wave₂, Father [and] Son₂, capital [and] social₂, accumulation [and] the exercise of order₂.  The oscillation is irreducible because that is the nature of Peirce’s category of secondness.  Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. One real element cannot be reduced to the other real element.  Secondness follows the logics of contradiction and noncontradiction.

What is disturbing about secondness?

What is contradictory₂ and what is not contradictory₂ will change with the normal context₃ and potential₁.  

0074 What does this disturbance imply?

Zizek’s parallax belongs to the realm of potential₁.  “Parallax” labels the optics of a monadic unity that underlies a quizzical dyadic actuality₂ that changes with its normal context₃.

0151 So, why is Lacan not a Buddhist?

Well, there is more to objet a_2c and [petit objet a]_2c than illusion.

If Buddhist enlightenment is all about transcending ontological realness, then the adept who attains enlightenment should just wither away from lack of jouissance.  If that happens, then all the insight that the adept has acquired (like capital!) cannot pour (like [wealth and power]) into exercises that train other adepts within Buddhist institutions (like social!).

0152 Zizek points out that Buddhism’s own mandate acknowledges that overcoming illusion is not all there is.

What is the Buddhist mandate for the adept who achieves enlightenment?

The adept must remain in order to guide others.

Here is a picture.

0153 From my brief foray into the topic of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, I know what an evolutionary anthropologist would label this [petit objet a]_2c.  The label is “altruism”.

[Altruism] is [wealth and power].

Yes, [altruism] is the contiguity within the actuality_2c of the Buddhist mandate.

But, these labels are explicit abstractions that belong to our current Lebenswelt.

0154 So, let me review.

There is a difference between an thing encountered and a thing understood.

0155 The first step in going from encounter to understanding is to regard the thing as an example of Peirce’s category of secondness.  So, when I encounter some good clay, I recognize that it is suitable for making a pot.  Both the clay and the pot constitute – what Lacan calls – an objet a.  The [substance] is petit objet a.  Petit objet a says, “Hey, this it the hylomorphe… er… ‘thing’… that you are looking for.”

0156 The second step on the path to understanding is to conjure a normal context_3a and potential_1a for the actuality_2a.  Here, my understanding depends on my familiarity with the potter’s wheel.

0157  If all I wanted to do is acquire a clay pot by exercising my social and technical know-how, then the story would end with content-level understanding.

But, in the prior examples, it does not.  Here is a picture of a virtual nested form in the category of secondness.  A perspective-level actuality_2c virtually brings a situation-level actuality_2b into relation with the potential of a content-level actuality_2a.

0158 If I ask the clay, “What do you get out of this?”

The answer comes back, “Nothing.”

And weirdly, it is the nothing inside the clay where people brew their tea.

Does that sound like “a pair of lacks”?

0159 Now, when I shift from a piece of clay on the content level, to an adept training in the Buddhist tradition, can I say that the adept is a piece of clay?

Does the adept empty himself or herself in order to gain happiness?

0160 The adept, like the clay, creates a hollow in which the objet a of the day can brew, releasing its aromatic [petit objet a], which tells the untrained mind, “This is the reality that you should buy into.”

This will make you happy.

A beautiful, high quality, clay pot is on sale today, at reduced price!

0161 But, what about the one my grandmother gave to me?

Destroy it. Replace it. Then, brew your tea with improved satisfaction.

The adept can see through the disturbance, contain the disturbance, release the disturbance.

It is as simple and as elegant as brewing a pot of tea.

Zen style.

0162 In sipping an illusion down to its dregs, the adept feels happiness.  This is the happiness of the {acquisition of enlightenment [wealth and power] release from the illusions that people are buying}_2c.  [Wealth and power] is not what we think it is.  The contiguity between acquisition and the exercise of order is dangerous.  So, why not simply let the suffering go?

“Oh wait!”, the Master intones, “Remember your form.”

0163 Surely, the greatest manifestation of [wealth and power] is what evolutionary anthropologists call [altruism].  Who can afford to give with no expectation of return?  No one can.  The adept begs for his food and for alms, so others can give and expect no thing in return.  Giving to a Buddhist monk is a moment of enlightenment.

0164 Zizek is correct in that Buddhism does not really grasp how jouissance_1x, objet a_2x, [petit objet a]_2x and the big Other_3x are radically intersubjective… or should I say?… “suprasubjective”.  They are inscribed, so to say.  But, they are not inscribed like pen on paper.  They are inscribed like the contiguity between pen and paper. {Pen [inscribe] paper}₂is the actuality₂ that requires understanding.  The inscription itself only requires recitation.

0165 With that, allow me to inscribe an observation.

Buddhism seems to put the evils of Soviet and Chinese Communism into the basket labeled “suffering”.

But, what about “evil”?

Are show trials evil?

Here is the observation as a virtual nested form in the category of secondness.

0166 On the content level, the normal context of a Stalinist state_3a brings the dyadic actuality of {policy failures [need for blame] show trials}_2a into relation with the possibility of ‘continuing current operations’_1a.

On the situation level, the normal context of broadcasting_3b brings the dyadic actuality of {accusation [constitutes] theatrical drama}_2b or {illusion [transaction] hollow satisfaction}_2b into relation with the possibility of ‘mollifying dissatisfaction with current operations’_1b.

On the perspective level, the normal context of the Relativist One_3c, the one who stands outside of all other jurisdictions, brings the dyadic actuality of {the projection of guilt as a judicial acquisition of “righteousness” [wealth and power] the social ordering of all when the accused confesses guilt}_2c into relation with the potential of  ‘a synthetic truth’_1c, which claims that current operations are both necessary and inevitable and well… do we feel the jouissance_1c?

0167 Oh, it all must make sense, since, if current operations fail, then we enter the night of the world.

Nobody wants that.

0205 What does Zizek do?

He investigates the contiguity between a noumenon [and] its phenomena, as if it might be a feature and not a bug.

He gives examples of Bell’s theorem.  He talks about anxiety, when it comes to relying only on phenomena.  What about the noumenon, the thing itself?  Oh, I can take the model, framed within the disciplinary languages of quantum mechanics, and account for the data, the observable and measurable features of the phenomena of really tiny things.  But, I have to take a lot of measurements, because these things are really small.  Plus, I cannot predict the behavior of any single small particle, because they are all identical as far as the measurement apparatus is concerned.

In a fashion, scientists transcend the ontological thing itself.

Scientist prefer to replace the noumenon with what the noumenon must be, according to their models.   Then, the model (standing in the place of the noumenon) [can be objectified as] its phenomena.

0206 Zizek considers space.

Zizek ponders time.

But, these excursions only bring the author to admit that space and time may well be located on the content-level, along with what it is_3a and the potential of ‘the thing itself’_1a.

You know, that is location with the “Please disregard…” sign.

Zizek writes something like this.  Science?  How crazy is science?  Science pushes symbolizing the real with formulas that don’t make sense to the point where we substitute our own encounters with the thing itself with what we imagine that our symbol-laden formulas are telling us what the noumenon must be.

0207 I suspect that is why Zizek is paid the big bucks.

He says it so much better than me.

Lacan was also paid well.  This fact pissed off competing psychoanalysts.  Lacan did not regard their urinations when he coined the French term, “achoses“.  Achoses gets transliterated into no-things.

For, example, a superposition of states/waves_2a is an achose.

Decades later, Zizek nicely ties the ribbon by noting that the “a” of achose is the a of objet a, which I have already encountered as the actuality_2x that emerges from (and situates) jouissance_1x, as the potential of ‘truth and synthesis’_1x.

Or, is it the possibility of ‘a synthetic truth’_1x?

0208 How about the following?

What if data_1c are syntheses_1c of the truth_1c of measurements_2b?

Then I can use a Lacanian… um… a Peircean re-articulation of a Lacanian schema… to boldly rip the banner of “Please disregard…” from the imaginary noumenon level and reveal the fully exposed achose_2a, as what the model says that the thing itself must be.  Oh… what?… a particle composed of superimposed waves_2a?… that is not it_2a, is it_2c?

0209 Here is a picture of the three-level interscope.

0210 Well, it_2a may not be the noumenon_1a, but it_2a is objectified by um… its phenomena_1b.

On the content or imaginary or noumenon level, the normal context of what it is_3a brings the thing that the model says it is_2a (that is, an achose_2a) into relation with the possibility of ‘the thing itself’_1a.   Or, should I say, “the possibility that it_2a can be the thing itself_1a, which it_2a obviously is not, because it_2a is what scientists say it_2a must be”?

On the situation or real or phenomenon level, the normal context of a measurement apparatus_3a brings the actuality of the dyad_2b, {the collapse of states/waves [yields] a measurement}_2b, into relation with the possibility of ‘phenomena from what is of the Positivist’s judgment’_1b.

On the perspective or symbolic or model level, the empirio-schematic judgment more or less unfolds.  The disciplinary language of quantum mechanics_3c brings the actuality of the dyad_2c, {acquired data [fits into] mechanical or mathematical model}_2c, into relation with the possibility of ‘data’_1c, which is obviously a mask for jouissance_1cdesignated as the potential of ‘a synthetic truth’_1c.

0211 After all, doesn’t “data_2c” manifest synthetic truth_1c?

And, doesn’t “data_2c” (as matter) fit into a mathematical or mechanical model_2c (as form)?

And, just like Jesus sees Satan fall from the heavens, like a lightning bolt, does not the symbolic cast its own image down to the imaginary?

Lacan follows a sacred vision to its obscene essence.

Metaphysics is not allowed.The achose is the discharge of radical materialism_2c into the hollow_2a between what it is_3a and the potential that it is_1a.

0212 Once the perspective, the symbolic, and the model_2c constellates, then BOOM!

In a flash of… um… illuminatingling… discharge, the believers speak in the tongues of disciplinary languages.

Here is the previous diagram at the moment when the tension between the perspective and content levels cracks down.

The form of a mathematical or mechanical model_2c instantiates the achose₂, a representation of the thing itself_2a.

0213 The transmigration of the symbolic into the imaginary is what every ambitious scientist dreams of. 

Ferdinand de Saussure’s model of language as two arbitrarily related systems of differences shocks the discipline of linguistics, then begins to seep into the content-level of psychology, sociology, anthropology and various humanities.

Albert Einstein’s model of relativity shocks the science of physics, then permeates into the content levels of a diversity of disciplines unrelated to physics, as if what it is_3a and the possibilities of ‘the thing itself’_1a have changed.

0214 It happens in all sorts of sciences.  The model transmigrates into the slot for the noumenon, constituting an imaginary noumenon that can be objectified as its phenomena.  Here, the term, “imaginary”, does not comport with common use.  “Imaginary” is technically a Lacanian label for a psychological being.

Here, the psychological being is the content-level of the above interscope.

The achose corresponds to the content-level actuality_2a.

0215 “Imaginary” overlays the level containing the noumenon.

The other two overlays are “real” and “symbolic”.

If I add Peirce to the mix, “imaginary” associates to the category of firstness, “real” to secondness, and “symbolic” to thirdness.  The symbolic virtually brings the real into relation with the possibilities of the imaginary.

The following figure compares the content-level that is disregarded by Copenhagen orthodoxy and the content-level that is electrified by scientists who triumphantly place their model_2c into the slot for the noumenon_2a. 

0216 I immediately notice that the actuality_2a in the content-level disregarded by Copenhagen orthodoxy is already tracing upwards towards a quantum mechanical model_2c.  It is only a matter of opportunity for the normal context of what it is_3a and the potential of ‘the thing itself’_1a to feel the impact of a symbolic discharge.

0217 What does this imply?

Does this imply that Lacan’s theoretical configuration of one particular level in an interscope fractally scales to the entire interscope?

Say what?

0218 Here is a picture containing both Lacan’s and Hegel’s terminology.  It applies to all levels, but most boldly to the perspective level (and Zizek’s configuration).

0219 Now, consider the thunderstruck three-level interscope, where triumphalist science has covered the noumenon_2aover with its model, so that the model (in the slot for noumenon) [can be objectified as] its phenomena.

What if the model_2c and model_2a correspond to an objet a writ large?

With that question in mind, consider the following figure.

Red denotes the objet a writ large.

0161 Today, in 2025, the psychometric Positivist’s judgment looks something like this.

0162 Yeah, the figure looks busy.

But, it still reads like a judgment.

The psychometric intellect (relation, thirdness) brings disciplinary languages honed to produce capitalist and socialist models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with a noumenal overlay of what people think, that can be objectified as what people say (what is, firstness).

0163 But, I thought that what people think cannot be fully objectified as what people say.

Ah, capitalist and socialist models substituting in for what people think can be objectified as what people say.

No wonder the judgment associates to the term, “the post-truth condition”.

0164 Remember, experts in the psychometric sciences make a lot more money than the practitioners of biosemiotics, even though the psychometric sciences are, like cybernetics, closely related to biosemiotics.

0165 Allow me to discuss the entire judgment starting with the relation (thirdness).

The psychometric intellect employs two normal contexts, a positivist one_3c and expertise_3b.  Note the subscripts.  The subscripts apply to a three-level interscope developed in Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2021) “A Player’s Guide To The Post-Truth Condition” (appearing in Razie Mah’s blog in July 2024).  Subscripts 1, 2 and 3 correspond to potential₁, actuality₂ and normal context₃. Subscripts a, b and c correspond to content_a, situation_b and perspective_clevels.

The psychometric intellect has a rule.  That rule is not quite the same as the mandate of the positivist intellect.  The positivist intellect says, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”  This constitutes a ban on Aristotle’s formal and final causes.  But, what of the psychometric sciences?  What do they permit?

0166 Allow me to elaborate.

Natural sciences depend on “truncated” material and efficient causes, because they are necessary for mathematical and mechanical models.

The social sciences fudge, as one sees with the phenomenologist’s Positivist judgment.  Social scientists ignore metaphysics.  As a result, novel “mechanistic” models reduce observations and measurements of social phenomena to material and efficient causes that slyly incorporate formal and final causation.  Metaphysics slips into social science models through an open backdoor.

The cybernetic sciences admit that metaphysics is allowed (and is not ignored).  Formal and final causes may appear in mechanistic models of habit.  At the same time, “metaphysics” changes its definition to “religious”.  So, cybernetic models are “not metaphysical”, because they are “not religious”.

The psychometric sciences apply the cybernetic approach to the political sciences.

0167 The psychometric sciences constitute the situation-level of a three-level interscope.  Rather than ignoring metaphysics (like social sciences) or grudgingly accepting them (like cybernetics), the psychometric sciences play a language game.  Metaphysical mechanisms are not “metaphysical”, therefore the label cannot apply.

Ah, that makes sense.

This is about politics.

0168 Take a look at what ought to be (secondness) and what is (firstness) for the psychometric Positivist’s judgment.

Expertise involved in the psychometric sciences is geared to explaining observations and measurements of what people say in response to an interventionalist “sign”.  Whenever the “system” takes an action, that action impacts people who are not involved in… um… “the decision_2c” to take action.  Nevertheless, people_3a are effected_1a.  People_3a will talk about those impacts_1a.  Those statements_2a become the phenomena_2a that experts_2b observe and measure_1b.  Then, the experts_3b produce capitalist and socialist models_2b, couched in the language of science_3c.  These models_2b offer opportunities_1c for “the system”_3c to make another “decision”_2c.

0169 A cyberneticist may portray the above paragraph as a functional… er… dysfunctional circle.

What does this suggest?

Is there more to the functional circle than meets the eye?

0170 Take a moment and examine the first item in point 0152 and the figure in 0153.

I ask, “What is a metaphor for the receptor?”

The answer is, “What people are saying.”

Note that phenomena_2a for the psychometric sciences_2b are strictly conditioned by a noumenon (what is, firstness) consisting of content-level personal experiences_3a,1a of an interventional sign-relation.  In other words, phenomena are what people say about an interventional sign-relation.

0171 Where does this interventional sign-relation come from?

Some deciding body (technically, the relativist one_3c) makes a decision_2c based on an opportunity_1c justified by capitalist and socialist models_2b, constructed by experts_3b, on the basis of psychometric data_1b.

0172 What about this “strictly conditioned” business?

Well, people say a lot of things.  The expert is only interested in statements that (1) concern the person’s experiences_2ain regards to an interventional sign-vehicle_2c and (2) are capable of becoming data_1b for capitalist and socialist models_2b.  So, the psychometric expert_3b dismisses almost everything that anyone says and only record statements relevant to their models_2b.

0173 Now, look at the title of the above figure.

The cyberneticist does the same conditioning for observations and measurements.

The cyberneticist triggers the receptor that initiates the functional circle.