Category Archives: Psychometric Sciences

08/1/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 33 of 33)

0339 So, why compare the two interscopes?

Well, there are two Relativist Ones, one belonging to Zizek’s configuration and one contained in the post-truth condition.

That is a tad confusing.

Plus, it seems to me that the following association of Lacan’s terminology with open slots of the perspective level applies to both interscopes.  

All these items may be regarded as writ small.

Plus, the pattern repeats within Zizek’s interscope.  Jouissance1 writ large coincides with the virtual nested form in firstness.

Similarly, objet a2c(2a) writ large matches the actualities2 on the perspectivec and contenta levels.  The petit objet a writ large matches the situation-level actuality2b.

Uh, does that also apply to the interscope for the post-truth condition?

If it does, then there are two Relativist Ones3c, one corresponds to a little Big Other3c(2b) (in Zizek’s configuration as a psychometric valuation2b) and one corresponds to a big Big Other3c (for the interscope for the post-truth condition).

0340 Okay, the little Relativist Big Other3c(2b) dwells within the big Relativist Big Other2b.

What about Christian atheism?

Zizek’s configuration resides within the slot for psychometric valuation2b.

Does Zizek’s Christian atheism3c(2b) deny the divinity of the big Big Other3c?

If it does, then the following comparison offers another reason why modern politics is immanently theological and supports Zizek’s concluding chapter, arguing that the post-modern West should not disregard psychoanalysis, simply because it questions postmodern scientific-sounding capitalist and socialist valuations2b.

0341 So… uh…. why does Zizek propose Christian atheism3c(2b)?

Isn’t Slavoj Zizek an expert2b operating on the formalized knowledges of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Hegelian philosophy and Marxist materialism1b?

Excuse me while I scribble a note saying, “Of course, he sees the light…”

0342 I want to note, if the big Relativist One3c is divine, as preached by the banquet dinner speaker, Baelzebob Jones,speaking, way back when, to the CPP on the evening when I was conceived, then psychoanalysis should be disregarded, because “wealth” and “power” are two distinct and separate entities2c, just like photons as waves and… um… photons as particles.

“… yeah, the light.”

Photons as particles1b(2b) and photons as waves1b(2b) produce distinct and separate measurements2b(2b), as far quantum-physics apparatuses3b(2b) are concerned.  Data1c(2b) is the potential1c(2b) of measurements2b(2b).  And, measurements2b(2b) virtually situate a model standing in the place of the noumenon2a(2b).

Consequently, an irreconcilable distinction between particle and wave2b  constitutes an opportunity1c that supports the divinity of the big Relativist One of the Physics of the Quantum Universe3c.

Fortunately, all hell broke loose before Dr. Jones finished his address.

0342 The logics of thirdness are exclusion, complement and alignment.  Here the little and the big normal contexts align, but the little cannot replace the big.  Nonetheless, the same term is used for both perspective-level normal contexts, even though the two normal contexts differ.  Both are Relativist Ones.

0343 The logics of secondness are those of contradiction and non-contradiction.  If the two actualities of {capital, acquisition [wealth and power] social, exercise of order}2c(2b)  and psychometric valuation2b do not contradict, then I can regard one as an example of the other… or maybe… the little one pays tribute to the big one.

0344 The logics of firstness are inclusion.  Firstness allows contradictions.  Here, the same principle noted above applies.  A synthetic truth1c(2b) supporting a situation-level little Relativist one3c(2b) offers opportunity1c for a perspective-level big Relativist one3c.

In Zizek’s book, a synthetic truth1c(2b) undergirds an intellectual configuration of the dyad, {capital, acquisition [wealth and power] social, exercise of order}2c(2b) for Zizek’s little Relativist One3c(2b).  Zizek’s psychometric valuation2b may contextualized as a possible opportunity1c by a post-truth big Relativist One3c.

Surely, opportunity1c is potentiated by the little Relativist one3c(2b).

But, what opportunity1c is potentiated by Christ3c(2b)?

Oh, I must not forget, Zizek calls for psychoanalysis.

So, Christ3c(2b) must be an intervention.

0345 The perspective-level nested form in Zizek’s configuration neatly fits into the slot for psychometric valuations2bon the situation-level of the post-truth interscope.

Does this explain why the names of post-truth levels should be totally juiced up?

0346 Okay, the entire interscope for Zizek’s configuration resides in the slot for psychometric valuations2b for the post-truth interscope.

This remarkable finding adds value to Zizek’s argument.

Zizek’s Christian atheism is designed to challenge current psychometric valuations2b arising from the potential of ‘a postmodern formalization of knowledge’1b within the normal context of a stylistic union of capitalist and socialist expertise3b.

Christian atheism3c(2b) can substitute for the little Relativist One3c(2b).

But, what about the union between the big Relativist One3c and the little Relativist One3c(2b)?

Would some say… “the unholy union”?

0347 See Razie Mah’s blog for February 11, 2023 for that one.

This blog serves as the first exercise for exploring the utility these arguments.

First, associate features of the music video to elements in Zizek’s configuration.

My hint is that the dyad, {money and political influence [pays for] the Body Shop} associates to the imaginary actuality, {raw materials [construct] specified product}2a(2b).

The rest is left to the exercise.

Second, place the first step into the slot for psychometric valuations2b in order to explain why this music video is produced and advertised by American corporate media.

0348 Do the producers and promulgators of this video want to influence what the white woman has to say?

Write your essay and send to raziemah@reagan.com with written permission for publication on Razie Mah’s blog.

0349 This first exercise reveals the comedy of locating Zizek’s configuration in the slot for psychometric valuations in the post-truth condition.  It also reveals the tragedy.

Consider the tragic photon.

In order to reveal itself as either a wave or a particle, it must be annihilated.

Is that too high a price to pay?

I guess not, because a photon is neither living nor dead.

0350 Take a look at the preceding interscope.

On the obscene level, no-one cares what the photon thinks, because it is doomed to annihilation in the process of determining whether it “says” that it is a particle or a wave.  How obscene is that?

On the undead level, experts in physics3b operate the apparatus3b(2b) that converts what the photon says2a into measurements2b(2b), that support an orderly model2c(2b).  The model2c(2b) asserts that the photon will say, “I am a particle composed of superimposed states and waves”2a(2b)“.  In other words, the measured photon2b(2b) says what the experts3b predict that it will say.

0351 Does this demonstrate the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’1b?

Formalized knowledge1b makes the annihilation of the subject2b(2b) possible.

The subject2a(2b)‘s content-level autonomy converts into a situation-level measurement2b(2b) that supports a model2c(2b)that offers an opportunity1c for an empirio-normative judgment2c to stand for what people think and say2a concerning the soon-to-be annihilated subject2a(2b).

0352 On the sacred level, the One Physicist2c formulates a judgment2b weighing the intelligibility of what the experts report2b and the universality of what photons are telling the experts2a.  This judgment reveals to human reason3a(1a)that it1b does not matter what photons think2a.

Isn’t that obscene?

Indeed, reason3a(1a), defined as “the intellect3a operating on the will1a“, is obscene.

Where the hell is truth1a?

0353 Isn’t that what Zizek is interested in?

Isn’t that what Christian atheism is supposed to deliver?

0354 So concludes my independent approach to what Zizek argues for.

I end with a note on nomenclature.

Lacan is very clever in his terminology.  

So is Zizek.

In the following picture on nomenclature, Lacan’s column applies to the entire interscope of Zizek’s configuration and Zizek’s “juiced up” column applies to the entire post-truth interscope.

Perhaps, these columns intimate future directions of inquiry during these crazy times, belonging to the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods.

0355 I thank Slavoj Zizek for a book that is worthy of examination.

02/27/25

Can Biosemiotics Explain The Psychometric Sciences? (Part 2 of 4)

0236 So, what is for the Positivist’s judgment belongs to the category of firstness (the realm of possibility) because phenomena have the potential to be observed and measured and their noumenon has the potential of being the thing responsible for the phenomena. 

What ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment belongs to the category of secondness (the realm of actuality).

0237 Triumphalist scientists propose to substitute a successful model for the noumenon because the substitution increases the potential that there is something real that is responsible for the phenomena.  Indeed, to a laboratory scientist, the model (overlaying the noumenon) is objectified by its phenomena.  Yes, the model is more “real” than its noumenon.

0238 The biosemioticians Sharov and Tonnessen propose to substitute their noumenal overlay, with similar results.  Phenomena objectify their noumenal overlay.

0239 Notice how the noumenal overlay has a dyadic structure.  Since the dyad characterizes the category of secondnessand since secondness is the realm of actuality, the dyadic structure increases the feeling that the the noumenal overlay is actual.  Indeed, the dyad is so actual that Kant’s slogan seems to apply.  This overlay has the feel that it is more than what it appears to be.

This is precisely what Sharov and Tonnessen claim.  Their noumenal overlay is what all noumena in the biological sciences have in common.  If the diverse noumena of the biological sciences (like the leaves on a tree) have one thing in common, it is the biosemiotic noumenal overlay (like the tree that bears the leaves).

0240 This includes the noumenon of the psychometric sciences.

Or, I should say, this applies to the model that the psychometric sciences aim to substitute for Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay.

After all, their model is a simplification of the S&T noumenal overlay.

02/26/25

Can Biosemiotics Explain The Psychometric Sciences? (Part 3 of 4)

0241 Science is about the search for truth.

This is the case for biosemiotics.

Science also is about empowering the human will.

This is the case for the psychometric sciences.

The human intellect3 contextualizes the potential of the human will1.  Does this normal context3 and potential1 describe human reason?  What actuality2 does human reason3,1 support?  How about what I think [is manifested by] what I say2.

This nested form allows me to imagine that the above dyad may serve as a content-level actuality2.

0242 Here is a picture.

0243 The content-level nested form belongs to the scrappy player.  The scrappy player will be situated by experts.  The experts provide opportunities for the one who relativizes all the jurisdictions of the experts.  I call the perspective level normal context, “the relativist one3c“.

0244 The full three-level interscope is developed in Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2020) “A Player’s Guide To the Post-Truth Condition”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for July 2024, as well as in Part I of the e-book, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0245 Ah, does that mean that the psychometric sciences are implicated in the current post-truth condition?

You bet.

The next move is to construct an expert level that situates the scrappy player.

0246 Note how what I say2a has been modified to phenomena2a available to postmodern expert1b.  Experts3bformalize1b phenomena2a in the process of constructing psychometric models of value2b.  Various disciplinary languages3b (relation, thirdness) are used in turning the phenomena of what people say2a (what is, firstness) into observations and measurements1b suitable to modeling as value2b (what ought to be, secondness).

These disciplinary languages derive from capitalist and socialist ideologies, reformatted to sound like the natural and the social sciences.

Yes, capitalist and socialist theorists learn to speak in the style of the empirio-schematic judgment.  These advocatessound like natural scientists and they define their academic turf as “scientific”.  Perhaps, it is only make believe.  But, the empirio-normative judgment2c takes it to be real1c.

Compare the expert level with the empirio-schematic judgment, unfolded into a situation-level nested form.

Indeed, the comparison is fecund.  Both capitalist and socialist theorists speak the same style of scientific disciplinary discourse.  No wonder that the proposed models2b never really make sense to the scrappy player3a.  Capitalism3b and socialism3b come from different theoretical possibilities1b.

0247 What do capitalist and socialist ideologies3b have in common?

During the Third Battle among the Enlightenment Gods, the Cold War among Materialist Ideologies, capitalism and socialism fight over the same noumenon, the thing itself that can be modeled as value.  Now, in the Fourth Battle with the Enlightenment Gods, Empirio-Normative Domination of Subject Populations, capitalist and socialist theorists unite in the production of value2b.  They do so in the imitation of natural science.  And, that is what they have in common.

02/25/25

Can Biosemiotics Explain The Psychometric Sciences? (Part 4 of 4)

0248 Here is the interscope for the post-truth condition.

Take a look at the above figure and see whether you can identify what the noumenon must be.

Yes, the noumenon must be what I think2a.

0249 In the following figure, the noumenon is in red.

Its phenomena appear in green.

The resulting models appear in light blue.

0250 This raises a question, “How does a system, where experts3b situate scrappy players3a, substitute expert-determined values2b for the noumenon2a?”  

Sharov and Tonnessen answer in the first sentence of the abstract for chapter two of Semiotic Agency.  Signs are semiotic tools.

In this instance, a sign-vehicle residing on the perspective level (SVi) stands for a content-level sign-object (SOi) in regards to a content-level sign-interpretant (SIi).

Specifically, a system-generated empirio-normative judgment2c (SVi) stands for what I think2a (SOi) in regards to my (the scrappy player’s) intellect3a operating on my will1a (SIi).

0251 Here is a picture.

0251 What does this imply?

Well, a system-generated empirio-normative judgment2c (SVi) influences my reason3a,1a (SIi) in such a fashion as to impact my wishes, my habits and my choices2a (SOi).

I may not even realize that the interventional sign-relation is being used by some agent3c on the perspective level,taking the opportunity1c to project2c an expert-fashioned psychometric value2b my way.  I encounter the interventional sign-vehicle2c (SVi) without realizing that it is a semiotic tool, aiming to trigger my intellect3a and my will1a (SIi) in such a way as to alter what I think2a (SOi).

0252 How crazy is that?

But, that is not the implication that I am looking for.

The implication is this: What I think2a is a noumenon.  The empirio-normative judgement2c aims to influence my intellect3a and will1a in order to alter my wishes, habits and choices2a.  So, the dyad, choice [habit] wish, is a model that the perspective-level judgment2c tries to lay over what I think2a.

0253 The dyad, choice [habit] wish is a simplification of Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay.  Its simplicity adds to its plausibility.  If I make a habit of treating my wishes as if they are my choices, the the model successfully substitutes for what I think2a.

And, what I say2a serves as phenomena for the psychometric sciences to observe and measure.

0254 Clearly, the psychometric sciences use the interventional sign-relation as a tool.

Biosemiotics says that signs are tools.

0255 One science accounts for the other.

In the process, two features of science come to consciousness.

The psychometric sciences represent the tendency of science to manipulate and control the subject of inquiry.

Reason3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect3a operating on the will1a.

Biosemiotics represents the tendency of science to pursue the truth.

Reason3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect3a seeking the truth1a.