0128 Millerman’s essay would make Leo Strauss proud.
Millerman’s argument is exoteric. Strauss and Dugin share an interest in Heidegger. That is not the only feature that they have in common. Therefore, a Straussian should not dismiss Dugin’s political philosophy out of hand.
0129 The centerpiece turns out to be a translation, by Millerman, of a list of what needs to be done, according to Dugin, in order to establish the possibility of a Russian philosophy.
0130 The three tasks involve…
…dismantling Russian archeomodernity. Ironically, for Americans and western Europeans, the task is precisely the opposite. For western Europe, the archeomodern groove is a receptor. For Russia, the archeomodern groove is a trap.
…correctly comprehending the West. Ironically, the West may not be comprehending itself. The modern West is all about science. But, what is science? Is science a purely relational structure composed of the Positivist’s and empirio-schematic judgments? Plus, is there something vulnerable within this relational structure? Does phenomenology exploit that vulnerability? Does Heidegger’s Sein correspond to the noumenon? What happens to the West if noumena take on lives of their own?
….elaborating a philosophy of chaos. The narod harbors cautionary wisdom that is ignored by modern political movements, who imitate the practices of the empirio-schematic judgment. Chaos is not necessarily the absence of order. Chaos may be the order that cannot be situated by sovereign power.
0131 The placement of Millerman’s translation, along with its surprising content, offers an esoteric message.
0132 All the blogs for February 2023 at www.raziemah.com examine selected chapters from Michael Millerman’s book (2022) Inside “Putin’s Brain”: The Political Philosophy of Alexander Dugin. Millerman has been studying Dugin’s works for over a decade. If there is to be a truly philosophical underpinning to Eurasianism, then Dugin begins the quest.
As for this reviewer, my first endeavor to read Dugin, Comments on Alexander Dugin (2012) Fourth Political Theory, may be found at smashwords and other e-book venues. I ask the question, “If I were to say what Dugin is saying, using triadic relations, then how would that work?” The answer intrigues.
Obviously, I am not interested in whatever box the literati of modern political philosophy want to put Dugin in. I am interested in the purely relational structures that Dugin reveals.
0133 So far, I reviewed chapters two and six. In this blog, I will briefly touch on chapter nine. Well, less that that. I see a Greimas square in the seventh section of chapter nine. Its title is “Theologico-Political Implications”.
In this section, Millerman hones down on the difference between the Heideggerian Left (HL) and Heideggerian Right (HR) in regards to the theological-political issue of the returning of the religious and the receding of the secular.
0134 Recall, Dugin’s formulation of “the people” associates to the following Greimas square.
Figure 01
0135 A is the focal term, “the people”. What is the political expression of the people? In America, the Declaration of Independence starts with “we, the people”. So the answer is involved. Suffice to say that, until recently, the political expression is the democratically elected representative. Until recently? Mailing out unsolicited ballots is unconstitutional. It makes me wonder, what do modern intellectuals mean when they say the word, “democracy”.
B contrasts with A. Here, the three political theories (of liberalism (1), communism (3), fascism (2) and big government (il)liberalism (1, again)) model phenomena of a prepolitical world in terms of the individual (1, 1-again), class membership (3) and citizenship and noncitizenship (2).
C contradicts B and implicates A. Dugin uses the Russian word, “narod”, for prepolitical people that various schools of modern political philosophy regard as noumenon. The people (A) are political. The narod (C) is the people before being objectified by explicit political theories. For me, the narod (C) is humanity in our current Lebenswelt.
D contrasts with C, contradicts A and implicates B. Dugin uses the Russian word, “ethnos“. The narod (C) comes out of the ethnos (D) and cannot return. To me, the ethnos (D) is us in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Our current Lebenswelt (narod (C)) is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (ethnos (D)). The hypothesis of the fist singularity contributes an evolutionary dimension that complements Dugin’s theologico-political analysis.
0136 Dugin is an example of the Heideggerian Right (HR). HR philosophers are few in number and for good reason. They are considered to be the enemies of the Heideggerian Left (HL), who want to co-opt Heidegger for their theological-political convictions.
Millerman poses this question (more or less), “How does the HL view the theological-political issue of receding secularism and returning religiosity?”
0137 Here is how I associate the discussion to the Greimas square.
Figure 02
0138 According to the HL, A, democracy is under threat because…
0139 …B, democracy must be secular.
Even though secular is an adjective and democracy is a noun and therefore B contrasts with A, secular is a necessary qualifier. A democracy cannot be a democracy unless it is secular. Hence, when HL-friendly pundits on public-private partner television say the word, “democracy”, they actually mean “secular democracy”.
0140 C contradicts B and complements A. C is religious. Non-secular means religious, just as secular means “not religious”. But, this too is wordplay, since religions are not “non-secular”, they are believers in an ultimate foundation, D. However, from the HL Greimas square, C is nonsecular.
At this point, secular institutions take on a scientific glow. The secular (B) use theoretical disciplinary languages to model observations and measurements of social phenomena. Naturally, these models end up defining the options available for ballots in… um… a democracy (A). Thus, the ultimate foundation (D) complements the secular (B) because it (D) does not exist.
0141 D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B. Already, I know how D complements B. The fact that an ultimate foundation fills the slot for (D) yet does not exist, according to HL, reveals the nature of the way the ultimate foundation (D) is itsown lacking.
Surely, this sounds like a contradiction in terms. But, that is the way HL rolls.
There is no God. There is no ethnos. The possibility that these statements (D) are wrong contradict (A), “democracy”, which, according to HL, must be godless (B). If these statements are incorrect, then the political system would not be a “democracy”, but a “theocracy”.
0142 Okay, HL is into wordplay.
The Heideggerian Right takes the Heideggerian Left’s wordplay at face value, producing the following remake of the HL Greimas square.
Figure 03
0143 As before, A, the focal word, is “democracy”.
0144 B contrasts with A, in the way that an adjective contrasts with a noun. The secret handshake allows HL pundits to indicate a secular democracy when they use the word, “democracy”, and use the word, “theocracy”, when religious folk take to the ballot box.
0145 C contradicts B because the word, “radical” (C), means “rooted”, and “secular” (B) means not religious. This implies that the radical (C) adheres to emptiness (D) with the same conviction that the religious, er… non-secular (C) adheres to an ultimate foundation (D). No wonder the radical (C) strives to eradicate the ontological and theological facets (phenomena) of the narod. The radical (C) creates conditions where other social phenomena (such as the individual, class membership, the roles of citizen and noncitizen) can be observed and measured by modern scientifically minded theoreticians (B).
0146 Emptiness (D) entails the absence of (1) an ultimate foundation encompassing both God and humans, (2) the ethnos, (3) what we evolved to be and (4) the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B.
Emptiness (D) contrasts with radical (C) because it (C) is rooted in ‘something’ (however ephemeral, such as an act of will).
Emptiness (D) contradicts democracy (A) because the implementation of secular policies (B) reveals the root (C) to be a pure act of will, rather than a product of say… philosophical inquiry.
Emptiness (D) complements the secular (B) because the secular knows that its politics will undermine whatever traditions that they are rooted in (C).
0147 In sum, the HL diagram celebrates democracy (A) and the secular (B) while denying the religious (C) and the possibility of an ultimate foundation (D). The HR view of the HL diagram positively labels the negative attitude towards religion as “radical” (C) and the denial of an ultimate foundation (D) as “emptiness”.
0148 To me, the Greimas square for the HL and for what the HR thinks of the HL’s views must be regarded as funny. Perhaps, hilarious.
How so?
The ethnos is where our sense of humor evolves. The narod is where people formulate jokes. The secular is where people lose their sense of humor . Democracy is where the comedy of the humorless plays out on the world stage.
0149 I do not know whether Heidegger’s “fourfold” or “das Geviert” can be re-articulated as a Greimas square. It might be worth trying. Perhaps, use of the Greimas square will allow the HL to take themselves less seriously and the HR to chuckle under their beards. The problem, of course, is that Dugin is no longer laughing, because the ones who take themselves seriously have designated him, not as a philosopher, but as a threat.
Pray for the soul of Alexander Dugin’s daughter.
0150 My thanks to Millerman for his excellent book. Please check out the Millerman School and dugin.com.
0001 Daniel Estulin holds a notable resume. He is a doctor of conceptual intelligence and a foreign policy advisor to sovereign states in Latin America and Eurasia. He has authored many books, and hosted a Spanish language TV show on RT (formerly, Russia Today). The subtitle of the book is “Tectonic Processes of Global Transformation”.
This look is a teaser for a more extensive examination, Comments on Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) “2045 Global Projects At War”, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0002 Estulin formulates the concept of global project and applies it to a number of civilizations, nations and international cabals. His approach is intuitive and relies on his considerable experience and knowledge. Estulin’s book is not structured in a manner that the reader learns a particular technique. Consequently, the above-mentioned comments add value. Perhaps, there is a method to Estulin’s approach.
0003 Certainly, the concept of global project is valuable, especially when applied, by Estulin, to the world in the present day. Estulin is so well informed that he exercises the concept without trouble. Does he want the rest of us to wield this tool without his years of experience, trials and reflection?
I don’t know.
0003 All I know is that humans tend to think in the ways of purely relational structures, often without realizing that fact. So, I read Estulin’s text with two purely relational structures in mind, the Greimas square and the category-based nested form.
I start with a Greimas square and focus on the key word of “capitalism”. A quick introduction to the Greimas square may be found in the other blog for this month (at www.raziemah.com for January 2023).
0004 Here is the result.
Figure 01
0005 The four elements are clarified by the following statements.
A is the focal term. A is also the social head. A goes with economics.
B contrasts with A. B is also the social body. B goes with politics.
C contradicts B and complements A. C is capital. Capital goes with information, intelligence and conspiracy system. Anyone who gets an investment newsletter appreciates this. The stuff of investment letters scale up when considering prices, markets and monetary policies. C is what the social head fixates on. C functions as a mind-independent being. C is what the social head thinks about.
D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B. D is communion. Communion (D) is the object that brings us together. Communion (D) is not a mind-independent being, even though it appears to be. It (D) is mind-dependent, in the same way that a stomach and lungs are mind dependent. We don’t just want to eat or breath. We want to eat and breathe well. Communion (D) is aesthetic, while economics (A), politics (B) and conspiracy system (C) are calculating.
0020 So, consider the cities imaged by the global project of the New Babylon. Say “yes” to Renaissance Venice. Say “no” to Edinburgh, ship those jobs overseas and repackage the assets. Say “hello” to the City of London, full of intrigue, secret societies and corruption.
0021 Unfortunately, New Babylon is at war with other global projects.
In order to appreciate the drama, one must read Estulin’s own words.
0022 Nevertheless, Razie Mah’s e-work, Comments on Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) 2045 Global Projects at War, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, adds value by providing a technique that students and educators may find beneficial.
Each global project contains all three permutations, arranged into an interscope. An interscope is like a three layer cake. The layers are content, situation and perspective. P1, P2 and P3 combine into three different interscopes. These interscopes associate to global projects.
0023 This examination is only a teaser for both Estulin’s book and the corresponding commentary by Razie Mah.
The New Babylon global project is one among many. Estulin covers almost a dozen.
So, one must be selective.
Razie Mah’s commentary develops diagrams for the global project of China.
0024 For all who are interested in the dynamics of global projects, Estulin’s book is a good place to start. Mah’s comments offer a comprehensible technique to apply. The latter complements the former. I encourage intellects to play with Estulin’s approach and Mah’s diagrams.
0025 Alex Jones, bubbalatory founder of the InfoWars website, is currently hounded by deep-state legal-predators. He was recently fined an unimaginable number of dollars to pay for the psychological damage that he apparently inflicted as a bombastic, yet entertaining, provocateur who speaks fiction to fact. Or, is it fact to fiction?
Does fact or fiction matter? If Jones had been a provocateur for the established revolutionary spirits, there would have been no repercussions. Take a look at Steve Colbert and Keith Olbermann, who serve as provocateurs for the diverse monocultures of big government (il)liberalism.
0026 What does matter?
Or, should I ask, “What does not matter?”
At the same time that Jones is fined a grave sum, the actual murderer, who caused the plaintiffs’ real trauma, gets sentenced to life in prison, rather than execution. Perhaps, the second judge should have fined the murderer the same package that the first judge levied on Jones. Which is worse, life in prison or permanent penury?
After all, the event itself is as horrible as questioning the realness of an event.
Is it not?
0027 Of course, it is, to some.
The scholastics of the Latin Age debate this question for around 500 years (roughly, from 1100 to 1600 AD). There are two kinds of beings: ens reale (mind-independent being) and ens rationis (mind-dependent being). The terms are Latin. Speak them with an Italian or French or Spanish accent. The Latin term, “ens” is translated as “being”.
What is “being”?
Being has presence, just like things. But, things are grounded in the material and being includes the immaterial as well as the material. A being may be a purely relational structure.
0028 So, what of the crime that Alex Jones contested?
Clearly, the event of the crime is ens reale.
Also, the skeptical questions that Alex Jones raises are ens rationis.
0029 Ens reale is not the same as ens rationis.
This poses a difficulty for those schoolmen.
0030 Fast forward to the previous century, where a literature-oriented structuralist, Algirdas Julien Greimas (1917-1992 AD), adds a twist. He proposes that a spoken word (or term) generates a purely relational field of contrasting and contradicting elements, according to a particular style. The result is the Greimas square, pictured below.
Figure 01
0031 Here is how the Greimas square works (more or less).
A is the item in focus.
B contrasts with A.
C speaks against (or contradicts) B and complements (or implicates) A.
D contrasts with C, contradicts A and implicates B.
0032 Now, I associate these slots to the scholastic business about mind-independent (A) and mind-dependent (B) being.
Figure 02
0033 Well, I already can see why medieval academic debates take so many bizarre turns. The Greimas square has two items that are not labeled.
Not labeled?
Look and see.
I suspect that experts on those scholastic debates can provide the appropriate Latin terms.
0034 Today, I offer labels for C and D.
An illusion (C) is a mind-independent being that is regarded as mind-dependent.
For example, a ten-dollar bill is a mind-independent being that is regarded as a mind-dependent tool for purchasing something. Here is an illusion that functions on a day to day basis.
A delusion (D) is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent.
For example, confidence in the value of a ten-dollarbill is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent. Inflation erodes confidence.
0124 Does the bombastic, entertaining, yet earnest Alex Jones speak fiction to fact? Or fact to fiction? Or both? Or neither?
0125 This look at his most recent book suggests that the terms, “fact” and “fiction”, are inadequate. Terms that are much older, yet still explicit abstractions, are preferable.
To me, the Latin terms, “ens reale” (mind-independent being) and “ens rationis” (mind dependent being), apply.
0126 I will not be the first to falsely accuse Alex Jones of being what he is not, when I say that Jones works in the vineyards of scholastic thought. He intuitively senses and exposes illusion and delusion. Plus, he strives to identify a nomenclature to describe how Klaus Schwab casts his sorcerer’s spell in an act of persuasion, just like that serpent in the third chapter of Genesis.
The scholastic world of the high middle ages (roughly 1100 to 1600 AD) rocks with controversies concerning how to distinguish (and perhaps, separate) ens reale and ens rationis. The schoolmen struggle against manipulative influences that bring these two types together, alchemically mixing them, in order to precipitate novel (mind-dependent) mind-independent beings (D). D can become the next A. Such is the nature of original sin.
0127 The Greimas square is an act of persuasion that does not fit what anyone currently imagines is an act of persuasion. Yet, Alex Jones smells it. He sniffs out a rhetorical pattern that seems credible, yet defies practical reason. This is his charism.
0128 A little philosophy goes a long way.
Indeed, this look at The Great Reset may seem to be a revelation.
0001 Many home and private schoolers face a difficulty.
They want to teach their children and students about God and nature.
At the same time, they want their children and students to pass standardized tests constructed by government agencies that declare themselves to be “not religious”.
Can a “not religious” sovereign establish a religion?
I like to call this apparent anomaly, “Big Government (il)Liberalism”.
Other names also apply.
0002 Indeed, parents and teachers suspect that the standards… or perhaps, the norms… of these godless educational… er, indoctrinating agencies do not allow a type of thinking that has been common to Christian civilization since its inception. This type of thinking is both analytic and synthetic and is promulgated by the schoolmen (or “scholastics”) of the so-called “Middle Ages”.
As it turns out, scholastic debates concerning mind-independent and mind-dependent reality end up with a definition of sign-relation that incorporates modern science, while at the same time transcending it.
Of course, the mechanical philosophers of the 1600s don’t know this. Modern scientists try to model observations and measurements of phenomena, using their highly specialized disciplinary languages. These models break down into two elements: cause and effect.
But, material and physical cause and effect cannot describe the causality inherent in sign relations.
0003 Surely, there are three elements to all existence.
Charles Peirce (1839-1914 AD) reads Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), a Baroque Scholastic, and comes up with the idea that there are three categories. Firstness has one element. Secondness (which includes mechanical science) has two elements. Thirdness has three. These three categories describe the causality inherent in a sign relation.
These three categories are also the foundation for the category-based nested form.
0004 So, what does this mean to parents and teachers?
None of the government agencies, who declare themselves to be “scientific”, can define the sign as a triadic relation.
So, perhaps that is a good place to start.
0005 Semiotics encompasses the natural sciences, not the other way around.
Teaching your students the analytic and synthetic practices of the category-based nested form and semiotics will prepare them for technology, engineering and mathematics. Science typifies secondness. And, secondness stands between thirdness and firstness.
Say what?
Take a look at the following figure. Even without familiarity with Peirce’s categories, the diagram tells a story concerning the relevance of triadic relations1 in regards to inquiry3 and science2. Understanding is not the same as scientific determination.
Figure 01
0006 What about the social sciences?
I wonder, can modern social scientists observe and measure social phenomena?
Can they model observations of religious behavior, when they describe themselves as “not religious”?
If everyone can be religious and if social scientists choose not to be religious in order to build models of their observations of those who are, then isn’t there some sort of contradiction?
Or, is that the nature of specialization?
Speaking of specialization, sociologists do not study psychology. Psychologists do not study sociology. Plus, sociology and psychology ignore biology. All these disciplines are alchemically sealed within their own academic echo-chambers. They cannot hear one another.
Say what?
0007 The category-based nested form is a triadic relation, that is both synthetic and analytic. It is useful for reading texts. It is a powerful tool for picturing the purely relational characteristics of psychology, sociology, cognition and evolution.
A Course on How to Define the Word “Religion” offers a unique path into topics covered by the so-called “social sciences”, without the blinders of BG(il)L.
Please consider this course when developing a curriculum for your children and your students.
0161 In conclusion, many home and private schoolers face a difficulty.
They want to teach their children and students about God and nature.
At the same time, they want their children and students to pass standardized tests constructed by government agencies that promulgate a religion, even though they declare themselves to be “not religious”.
This course is one way to approach the difficulty.
This course offers a path, a text, along which you, the adult, and your children and your students may walk together.
0162 No other work in the field of educationin 2022 compares.
Except of course, other courses by Razie Mah, such as A Course on The Archaeology of the Fall and A Course on the Human Niche.
Welcome to the fourth age of understanding.
0163 A Course on How To Define The Word “Religion” may be found at smashwords and other e-book vendors, using the search terms: Razie Mah, series, course, how to define the word “religion”.
The course consists of ten primers, followed by the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”.
Each primer and masterwork is punctuated, not by page numbers, but by points. A one-hour class may cover between twenty and forty points. That is a little slower than one per minute. If you conduct a class, record the number of points covered per session and report to raziemah@reagan.com.
0164 These blogs provide a taste of the style and the content. They complement, rather than substitute, for the primers and the masterwork.
I hope that you enjoy these blogs and pass them onto others who may serve as guides in a world where education is the job of parents and those similarly motivated, rather than those who are certified by the state.
0001 William Lane Craig publishes a work of erudition, titled, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, ISBN 978-0-8028-79911-0). The bibliography contains over 250 references.
Part One discusses what is at stake.
Part Two covers the Biblical “data” concerning Adam and runs 210 pages.
Part Three covers scientific evidence about the start of humanity (broadly defined) and runs 117 pages.
0002 Overall, the first two-thirds of the book discusses the importance of the historical Adam and explores what types of stories are contained in Genesis 2.4-11. Then, the final one-third addresses the question, “If humanity descends from a single couple, then where would we locate that couple in the scientific story of human evolution?”
0003 Clearly, this professor would have been assisted by glancing at the masterworks in the Razie Mah series, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other electronic book venues.
0004 Why?
Every sentence in this book is well composed and carefully reasoned. But, Craig’s quest ends at a location that is anything but. He writes (more or less), “Adam may be plausibly identified as a member of Homo heidelbergensis, living 750,000 years ago.”
The quest ends where the book should have started.
Then, the title could have been, “What if Adam and Eve are really the first humans?”
What if, indeed.
0006 Craig’s argument presumes, all along, that Adam and Eve are the first humans.
In this examination, I do not neglect the opposing question, “What if they are not?”
