Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) The Second Primer of the Organization Tier  (Part 11 of 24)

0061 The fifth primer further develops the organizationB tier.

Each of the three levels of the organizationB tier may further differentiate into interscopes.

In particular, the content level starts as a nested form.

Figure 23

0061 Then, this nested form expands into an interscope.

Figure 24

0062 Metaphors include the biological organism and the nuclear family.

Examples include the manor in medieval feudal society and the local bakery.


Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) The Second Primer of the Organization Tier  (Part 12 of 24)

0063 The fifth primer of the organizationB tier wrestles with two interscopes.  The content-level becomes the corporation interscope.  The remaining situation and perspective levels remain nested forms.

Perhaps, one day, these, too, will differentiate into interscopes.

0064 For the moment, I want to focus on the contenta and the situationb levels of organizationB tier.

Recall that a three-level interscope associates with social construction and a two-level interscope goes with sensible construction.  In the former, the perspective-level actuality serves as a social construction.  In the latter, the situation-level actuality operates as a sensible construction.

0065 Yes, both types of construction are in play. The corporationaB, the content level of the organizationB tier, is sensibly situated by the situation level, exchangebB.  But, the contentaB level is a three-level interscope.

So, the perspective levelc of the content-levelaB interscope has the same relational structure as social construction.  And, the situationb level of the organizationB tier manifests the relational structure of sensible construction.

0066 Here is a picture.

Figure 25

0067 In sum, exchangebB associates with sensible construction and the perspectivec level of the corporationaB associates with social construction.

0068 So I ask, “How does the marketbB virtually situate the managementc level of a corporationaB?”

0069 Consider biology.  The body is the actuality2 in the perspectivec level of the corporationaB interscope.  What actuality2bB virtually situates the body2caB?  Encountering the world2bB does.

Figure 26

0070 How sensible is that?

0071 What happens when my body2caB encounters the world2bB?

Well, I see, hear, smell, touch and maybe, taste the world.  Also, I have feelings about those sensations.  The medieval scholastics have a word for this combination of sensations and feelings.  The Latin term is species impressa.  Say the word like you are ordering it in an Italian restaurant.

Does the term sound vaguely familiar?

What if I say that an impression is a dyadic actuality: active body [substantiates] sensate soul?

Does that help?

0072 Does the same relational structure apply to a commercial enterprise?

Here is a picture.

Figure 27

0073 Well, I suppose that a bakery business2caB is like a body2caB, even though I never thought that I am running my body like a business.  It seems that my body2caB runs itself.

Also, I never imagined that a customer buying a loaf of bread2bB is how a bakery encounters the world2bB.  At the same time, I can see that the relational structure is similar.  Sensible construction applies, until something goes wrong.

0074 What an unanticipated way to enter the discipline of economics.

Encounters with the world2bB are certainly causal.  They occur in the realm of actuality.  So do purchases of loaves of bread2bB.

Since the realm of actuality corresponds to the category of secondness and since secondness consists in two contiguous real elements, I may ask, “What are the real elements involved?”

0075 Well, it depends on the question (that is, the normal context).

Okay, the question is, “Why does this exchange occur?”

Well, the baker wants to sell the bread.  I call the bread, “a quality product”.

Plus, the customer wants to buy the bread.  I call the willingness, “demand”.

These two realnesses are somehow contiguous.

Figure 28

0076 What is the contiguity?


Price is not a thing.  It is the contiguity between a willingness to sell and a willingness to buy.  As such, price is substantial.  Price is a site of contention.

The Second Primer on the Organization Tier introduces economic concepts, such as quality and demand.  It does so without naming the upperC tier.

0077 The organizationB tier, like the individual in communityA tier, is a noumenon, a thing itself, whose phenomena are subject to scientific inquiry.  Phenomena are the observable and measurable facets of a noumenon.

What does this imply?

Science investigates phenomena.  A noumenon cannot be reduced to its phenomena.  So, scientific inquiry cannot elucidate the noumenal features of either the organizationB or the personA.

In contrast, the category-based nested form can.

0078 How so?

Economics can measure and observe prices and build models and discuss these models using its disciplinary language.

But, economics cannot objectify the thing itself.

Price is the contiguity between two real motivations.

In order to understand price, one must inquire about these motivations.

0079 Thus, at this juncture, I implore the reader to consider teaching these primers, as well as the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”.  The method is read and discuss.

0080 This course is a wonderful way to introduce your children and your students to the difference between science and understanding.  Search for the keywords, Razie Mah, series, How To Define The Word “Religion”.

Once again, here is a picture of the difference.

Figure 29

Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) A Primer on the Family  (Part 13 of 24)

0081 The sixth primer introduces the content level of the societyC tier.

Prior to primer six, the family appears twice as a metaphor for the organizationB tier.  

In primer four, the family associates to the entire organizationB tier.

In primer five, the proper familyaB associates to the contenta level of the organizationB tier.

0082 The family as a corporationaB expands into an interscope.  The provider associates to managementcaB.  The nurturer goes with productionbaB.  The child matches serviceaaB.  ManagementcaB, productionbaB and serviceaaB go with a corporationaB.  ProvidercaB, nurturerbaB and childrenaaB go with the family as a proper organizationaB.

0083 Like the corporation, the familyorgaB is founded on an accommodation, which I call “the marriage deal”.  The marriage deal3aB is more than the feelings, perceptions and judgments of individuals in communityA.  It3aB is the normal context of human pair-bonding1aB.  Human pair-bonding is evolutionarily ancient.  So, we are innately prepared to recognize the marriage deal3aB whenever we encounter it3aB.

0084 What does this imply?

The family associates to all three tiers of the presence underlying the word, “religion”.

Figure 30

0085 Once again, the family participates in three associations.

0086 Familyinst3aC goes with the contenta level of the societyC tier, also called “the institution level”.  An institutionaC is not the same as an organizationB or a corporationaB, even though they may appear to be the same.  An institutionaC puts the organizationB into perspective.  It is the difference between a mission statement and an organization chart.

0087 FamilyB, the family as an organization, associates to the entire organizationB interscope.

Here is a picture.

Figure 31

The ancient Greek word for “household”, “oikos“, is the root word for today’s term, “economy”.

0088 FamilyorgaB, the family as corporation, associates to the content level of the organization interscope.  

The marriage deal3aaB stands as the normal context3 of the content levela of the corporationaB interscope.

0089 What possibility1aaB underlies the marriage deal3aaB?

The potential of the male-female pair bond1aaB does.


Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) A Primer on the Family  (Part 14 of 24)

0090 A Primer on the Family adds the institutiona level of the societyC tier to the picture of the family.  Familyinst3aC putsthe proper familyaB into perspective under the conditions of the family as an organizationB.

Here is a picture.

Figure 32

0091 The familyinst3aC exemplifies an infrasovereign religion that does not require sovereign power, because family organizational objects2aC innately appeal to human sensibilities.  The marriage deal3aaB has served our genus well.

0092 If a social madness sweeps through civilization, proclaiming that families are not righteous, then its victory paves the way for insanity.  A leader who destroys the family destroys “himself”.  From the social wreckage, a realization emerges.   Dad loves mom.  Dad provides for mom.  Mom loves dad.  Children are blessings.  Mom puts dad in charge of the family.

Yes, the realization is as old as humanity itself.


Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) A Primer on the Family  (Part 15 of 24)

0093 What is righteous1aC?

Can righteousness1aC be pictured or pointed to with hand talk?

Of course not, what is there to image or point to?

Yet, our hominin ancestors adapt to the niche of righteousness, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

How can our ancestors adapt into a niche that they cannot label?

0094 In our current Lebenswelt, the term, “righteousness”, is an explicit abstraction.  An explicit abstraction places a label on ‘something’ that we cannot image or indicate using hand talk.  Such is the advantage of speech-alone talk.

0095 So how do we figure out what the term refers to?

We project reference into the term, “righteous1aC“, and construct artifacts… er, do I mean to say?.. organizational objectives2aC that validate the projections.

If that sounds circular, like some sort of feedback loop, then I can only conclude that humans are loopy.  As long as the artifact, the objectorg2aC, continues to be relevant to the individual in communityA and the organizationB tiers, then the institution3aC remains, promulgating its righteousness1aC.

0096 As soon as the artifact is no longer salient, then who remembers?

The family always remembers. 


Children are always relevant.


Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) A Primer on How Institutions Think  (Part 16 of 24)

0097 The sixth primer introduces the contenta level of the societyC tier, while discussing the family.

The seventh primer develops a general picture of institutionsaC by reviewing a book, by anthropologist Mary Douglas, titled How Institutions Think (1986).

0098 Here is a diagram for the institutionaC.

Figure 33

The normal context of institution3aC brings the actuality of organizational objects2aC into relation with the potential of righteousness1aC.

0099 From A Primer on the Family, I know several things.

Institutions3aC put the organizationB tier into perspective.

The organization’s objects2aC address the individual in communityA and call him and her to participate in a proper organizationaB.

0100 The interplay between the societyC, the organizationB and individual in communityA tiers is complicated.  So, the primer is fairly long.

Plus, the seventh primer ends with a challenge.  Can the category-based nested form apply to the trial of Jesus in the Gospel of John, verses 18:28 through 19:23?

0101 Here, I attempt an application.  First, I associate elements of the theodrama to the nested form.  Second, I discuss some implications.

0102 Here is the story.

In John 18:33-35, Pontius Pilate, disappointed that the crowd outside the praetorium lobbies for executing Jesus, comes back into the praetorium and asks the Son of Man, “Are you king of the Jews?”

Jesus asks Pilate.  What are those outside saying about me?

Pilate replies that they want you (Jesus) to be executed.  So Pilate asks again.  Are you (Jesus) claiming to be king of the Jews?”

I pause.

0103 Does any of this associate to the normal context of institution3aC?

Those outside the praetorium belong to one institution, the Jewish temple authorities.

Those inside belong to another institution, the Roman authorities.

Obviously, Jesus belongs to neither of these two institutions.

0104 One organizational object2aC is held in common by these two institutions3aC.

Jesus is being positioned as an organizational object2aC that serves as a site of contention.  Roman authority does not permit the Jews to establish a king.  But, the religious leaders claim that Jesus regards himself as the king of the Jews. Therefore, Jesus has broken Roman law and must be executed.

So. the objectorg2aC is the king of the Jews.

Figure 34

0105 What associates to righteousness1aC?

I suppose that the normal context of the Jewish temple3aC brings the king of the Jews2aC into relation with the possibility that a king would defend his people against the occupying Roman forces1aC.

Also, the normal context of Roman authority3aC brings the king of the Jews2aC into relation with the potential that a Jewish king would lead a rebellion1aC.

0106 I continue.

In John 18:36-37, Jesus answers Pilate’s question.  Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world.  He is here to bear witness to the truth.

So, the righteousness1aC underlying the purported claim that “Jesus is king of the Jews”2aC does not support the normal contexts3aC.

Figure 35

0107 Implications?

Well, one obvious take home point is that neither normal context applies to Jesus.  Jesus stands above both temple and empire.  His kingdom is outside the earthly realms.  Yet, here He is, about to be executed as a worldly king, when clearly He is not.


Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) A Primer on How Institutions Think  (Part 17 of 24)

0108 In John 18:38, Pilate replies, “What is truth?”

More on that later.

0109 In How Institutions Think, Mary Douglas calls into question rational choice theory and functionalism.  These anthropological schools dismiss two sociologists, Emile Durkheim and Ludwig Fleck.  These sociologists insist that institutions3aC interpellate individuals in communityA.


“Inter” is Latin for “among”.  “Pellate” is Latin for “call”.

0110 Institutions3aC call usA, like any person may call usA.  Interpellation supports the notion that an institution is “a person writ large”.

At the same time, the contenta level of the societyC tier expands into an interscope that looks like the societyC tier.  The similarity supports the notion that an institution is “a society writ small”.

Here is a picture.

Figure 36

0111 Now, I return to Pilate’s reply.

Jesus is not a contender for the throne of Judea.  Instead, Jesus is a witness to the truth1aaC.  

What do Jewish and Roman authorities fear?  They fear loss of stability1baC.  They fear that a king of the Jews will manifest.  Neither the temple nor the legion would be able to control a priestly and a warrior king.  So, both work against the rise of… what may be called… “David’s promised descendant1caC“.

0112 Why?

What would a return of David’s lineage do?

Would it reconcile the Jew and the Roman?

Or would it lead to a massive battle?

What does the truth that Jesus bears witness to eventually do?

Does it reconcile Jerusalem and Rome?

0113 Take a look at the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility.

Figure 37

0114 The normal context of reconciliation1caC virtually brings the actuality of stability1baC into relation with the potential of the truth1aaC.


Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) A Primer on an Infrasovereign Religion  (Part 18 of 24)

0115 The eighth primer introduces the concepts of infrasovereign and sovereign religions.  The nomenclature is ambiguous.  Perhaps, one day, the ambiguity will be clarified.

But, remember, words are slippery beings.

0116 Technically, infrasovereign religions are institutions3aC that seek sovereign power3bC in order to achieve their organizational objects2aC.

Theoretically, all institutions3aC belong to the contenta level of the societyC tier.  Every institution3aC stands below the sovereign3bC.  Plus, some of these institutions3aC are obviously religious.  But, they do not seek sovereign power3bC in order to implement their organizational objectives2aC.  Until, of course, they change their minds.

Can a not infrasovereign religionaC become an infrasovereign religion merely by deciding to pursue sovereign power3bC?

Yes, plus, an institution3aC that self-identifies as “not religious” may become an infrasovereign religion by pursuing sovereign power3bC.

Yes, there is terminological ambiguity.

0117 The Reformation (around 1500 to 1550 AD) consists of Christian factions, breaking away from a historical unity (the Catholic Church) filled with um… factions.  The act of breaking away constitutes an organizational object2aC.  So, break-away factions appeal to sovereign authorities3bC in order to establish laws2bC that allow the new order1bC.  These factions gain the label, “religions”.

0118 The Reformation shows that sovereign power3bC virtually situates institutions3aC, including the new factions3aC.  Plus, the new factions3aC (as well as the old factions3aC that do not break away) pursue sovereign power3bCin order to implement their organizational objectives2aC.

Here is a picture of the first two levels of the societyC tier.

Figure 38

0119 What does this imply?

Infrasovereign and sovereign religions confound order1bC with righteousness1aC.

Religions that are not infrasovereign do not.

0120 Sovereign power3bC allows an institution3aC to impose its objectorg2aC as order1bC upon those outside the institution3aC.

What does this lead to?

Are those outside the institution3aC not righteous1aC?

0121 America’s (il)liberal big government legal system (1950 to present) offers an example.  The discussion is difficult, because the meanings of spoken words twist in the drama of an institution3aC… or rather, an infrasovereign religion3aC,… justifying its acquisition of legal authority2bC.

Nevertheless, the example in primer eight raises a weirdly foundational question.

Is sexual orientation identical to race?

0122 The modern (il)liberal says “yes”, because both are genetically determined.

The Christian says “no”, because, on one hand, discrimination based on race is historically conditioned.  American slavery and Jim Crow laws are extrinsic to the person.  On the other hand, sexual orientation is personally conditioned.  Homosexual activity involves personal choice.  These choices are intrinsic to the person.

0123 The clash of these two worldviews provides a frame for appreciating how both homosexual activists and Christian believers operate as religions.  The former is an infrasovereign religion.  The latter is not.


Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) A Primer on Classical Political Philosophy  (Part 19 of 24)

0124 The ninth primer concerns classical political philosophy.

What do classical philosophers talk about?

Well for one (1), they ask people for their opinions and for two (2), they try to figure out what is really going on,concerning the topic of opinion.

0125 The first (1) involves a strange game, concerning the difference between sensible and social constructions.  Most people regard their opinions as sensible constructions, in the same way that they regard their spoken words as real.

A spoken word labels an artifact that validates the… um… spoken word.  So, opinions are sensible in so far as artifacts validate them.

0126 That is where the second (2) comes on stage.  What happens when artifacts no longer validate their words?  Or, even more unsettling, what happens when the origin of opinions is social, rather than sensible construction?

Where have I heard that idea before?

0127 Now, I want to discuss one small section of the ninth primer, in order to explore a referral from classical political philosophy back to the distinction between sensible and social construction in the second primer.

0128 Here is a general picture of social construction.

Figure 39

0129 Note the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.

A perspective-level socially constructed reference2c brings the actuality of a bewildering experience2b into relation with a content-level originating reference2a.

I shorten this nested form into a coherent whole with the label, “a reference2c constructed3b on a reference2a“.

Here, the term, “constructed3b“, points to the failure of sensible construction and the triggering of social construction.

Also, the entire label has the character of secondness, the realm of actuality, when social construction really has the character of thirdness, the realm of triadic relations.

Unwittingly, my label changes categories.

0130 In the next blog, I will apply this pattern to one of my cherished opinions.

Wine is the nectar of the gods.


Looking at Razie Mah’s  (2015) A Primer on Classical Political Philosophy  (Part 20 of 24)

0131 Wine is the nectar of the gods.

That is my opinion.

0132 My opinion starts as a social construction.

Figure 40

0133 A perspective-level socially constructed reference2c brings the actuality of a bewildering experience2b into relation with a content-level originating reference2a.

The normal context of the nectar of the gods2c virtually brings the actuality of intoxication2b into relation with a glass or two (or three?) of wine2a.

0134 My label, reference2c constructed2b on a reference2a, turns the bewildering experience of intoxication into a contiguity between the perspective-level naming of “the nectar of gods” and the content-level encounter with wine.

Figure 41

0135 When I say, “Wine is the nectar of the gods.”, the verb, “is”, actually points to the bewildering experience of intoxication.

But, look up the definition of “is” in a leather-bound dictionary.  “Bewildering experience of intoxication” is not listed as one of the definitions of “is”, except in so far as the intoxication is a state of being.

0136 So, what happens when I meet my philosophical friends and state my opinion?

The conversants assume that I am making a statement subject to sensible construction.

Figure 42

0137 What does one of my philosopher friends reply?

“How can wine be the nectar of the gods?”

Yes, the logic of secondness includes the laws of contradiction and noncontradiction.

0139 Any defense can lead to only one conclusion.

I am drunk.