0321 What about chatGDP?

Is GDP an acronym for “gross domestic product”?

Do I label the USA’s federal government as a machine of perversion?

Oh, I meant to say.. as “a machine of artificial intelligence”.

0322 Perhaps, the word “foreclose” applies to chatGDP.  “Foreclose” is a legal term.  It is what happens when you cannot pay the interest on your debt.

Some day, it may find its way into the lexicon of Lacanian terminology.

0323 The appropriate Lacanian term is “castrate”.  ChatGDP serves to castrate its citizens, depriving them of any expectation of fully performing the symbolic function of the father.  That is to say, citizens must rely on the big government, rather than their own efforts, in order to actualize jouissance.

0324 Take a look at the interscope for the post-truth condition, and take a guess where ‘jouissance’_1c is to be located.

0325 Uh oh, am I starting to confound Zizek’s configuration and the post-truth condition?

The above figure depicts the post-truth condition.

On the content level of the citizen… er… scrappy player, the normal context of my intellect_3a brings the dyadic actuality, {what I think [cannot be objectified as] what I say}_2a, into relation with the potential of ‘my will’_1a.

So, what does the word, “reason_3a((1a))“, imply?

Reason_3a((1a)) is my intellect_3a operating on the potential of ‘my will’_1a, rather than the potential of ‘the truth’_1a.

Doesn’t the potential of my will_1a resonate with the term, “jouissance”?

0326 On the situation level of the expert, the normal context of expertise_3b brings the actuality of psychometric valuations_2b into relation with the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’_1b.  The traditions of capitalism and socialismfuse in the adoption of science as the format for discourse.  Expertise_3b is regarded in terms of academic credentials.  The more prestigious the credentials, the more authority granted.  But, as Zizek notes, academic credentials are the scars of castration.  Expertise_3b serves a master named “the Relativist one_3c“.

0327 On the perspective level of the Relativist one_3c, the system_3c brings the actuality of an intervention_2c, called “an empirio-normative judgment”_2c, into relation with the possibility that ‘psychometric valuations offer an opportunity’_1c.

For the empirio-normative judgment_2c, a relativist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the intelligibility of expert valuations (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with the universality of ‘what people say’ (what is, firstness).

0328 For example, in a college literature class, a professor accuses a freshman of submitting an essay written by chatGTP.  When challenged, the professor says that he scans all student submissions through proprietary software designed to detect whether AI participated in the construction of a document.  In this case, the expert_3b (a visiting assistant professor in literature) takes the word of an expert_3b (a computer program designed by full professors in literature and computer science).

0329 It’s all so empirio-normative.  The expert_3b (the professor using the proprietary software) says what the one who makes the empirio-normative judgments_3c (the academic authorities who granted a doctorate to the now visiting professor) want to hear_2c, but this is not the concern.  What is the concern?  The proprietary software_2c says that there no way that what the student thinks [can be objectified by] such well-elucidated statements_2a.

Why does the student use chatGTP?

Oh, the class assignment_2b clearly asks the student to write what the visiting professor wants to hear_2b.  Who knows more about what the professor wants to hear_2b than chatGTP?

May I scale that type of scenario up to chatGDP?

Or, maybe down to chatGDP?

Let me ask an expert_3b!

0330 Where does Zizek’s configuration stand in regards to the post-truth condition?

What am I writing about?

[Wealth and power] as a substance within a perspective-level actuality_2c?

But, that perspective-level actuality_2c belongs to Zizek’s configuration.

So, let me put Zizek’s interscope into a box (dashed red line).

0331 What does the preceding figure not tell me?

Zizek’s box manifests a psychometric valuation_2b in the post-truth condition. 

The empirio-normative judgment_2c balances the intelligibility_2c of psychometric valuations_2b, acquired from academic labor_3b, with the universality_2c of what people say_2a (never mind what they think_2a), in the course of the Relativist one_3c pursuing potential opportunities_1c.

The substance, [wealth and power]_2c, in the normal context of Christ_3c, has been excised, divided, re-appropriated, baked into contending ideologies, then turned into the stuff of psychometric valuations_2b.

Yes, Zizek’s configuration is a contender for the slot of psychometric valuation_2b.

0332 Is that why we currently call the start of our modern era, “the Western Enlightenment”?

Who enlightened us that wealth and power are distinct and separable terms?

Who brought capitalism and socialism together into one overarching scientific stylistic fixation?

What enlightenment god seeks empirio-normative domination over subject populations?