The Two Actualities of the “Be Little Men” Movement

0001 Sociology is often a curious field of inquiry. In the mirror of the world3, there is only one Be Little Men movement (blm).  Blm is a slogan2.  No substitutions to these words are allowed.  The potential1 underlying the slogan2 is fixed on the only possibility among a sea of possible meanings, presences and messages.  That potential is the possibility of marxist righteousness1.

Here is a picture of a triadic relation, as introduced in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

Figure 1

0002 What is marxist righteousness1?

Marx is a “communist” who names his enemy, the “capitalist”.

The specter of “capitalism”?

Das Kapital?

The root word for “capital” is “head”.

Wrap your cap around that.

0003 Marxist righteousness1 relies on the emptiness of spoken words.  A speech-alone word is merely a placeholder in a system of differences.  Meaning, presence and message must be projected into each spoken word.  The marxist reserves the right to project that meaning, presence and message.

Allow no substitutes.

Substitutions squander the purity of the projection.

0004 What does this mean to me3?

This is what the target of a marxist slogan never asks.

The slogan isolates the guilty.

Originally, the capitalist is the one upon which marxist righteousness descends.  The target is guilty, with no option of managing the label, except through submission1.  Indeed, the organizational objective2 is to manifest submission1.

Now, other labels serve as slogans2a.

This second nested form situates the first nested form, as described in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

Figure 2

0005 There are two blms.  On the content level, blm is a slogan2a emerging from (and situating) righteousness1a.  On the situation level, blm manifests organizational objectives2b that actualize the potential of submission1b, thus increasing the wealth, power and overall prowess3b of those reflecting the mirror of the world3a.

According to rumors, advertisers in saavy suites say that executive suits of major corporations donate large sums1b to an organization2b whose namesake is the slogan2a.  Other, less well-endowed targets are suited up as scapegoats, following the historic and literary patterns noted by Rene Girard.  Marxist righteousness projects a lack, held within the accuser, upon a scapegoat, the target.

0006 Yes, by definition1a, certain types can never submit1b.  These characters are magically gifted with the power to create the lack that they are accused of1a as well as the standing to fill that lack with their own… shall I say?.. capitals1b.

0007 Is marxism a modern version of an ancient religion?

Surely, early civilizations sacrifice humans to their gods.

Remember the old adage?

A capitalist will sell the communist the rope to hang himself.

The joke works as long as the target does not comprehend the intent of the customer.

Why would anyone hang the fellow who sold “him” some rope?

Marxist righteousness calls the fellow, a “capitalist”.

The seller’s hanging manifests the realness of the marxist’s organizational objectives1b.

In the same way, ritual sacrifice validates the realness of ancient deities.

0008 What else does this imply?

The target is not privy to what does this mean to me3b.  The deadly earnestness of marxist submission1b cannot be appreciated from the outside.  The above two-level interscope is sensible only from the inside.  The insider holds the secret knowledge3a that secures the slogan’s single possible meaning, presence and message1a.

If a gnostic path blossoms into a social movement, such as the be little men movement, then today’s secular academic sociologists include the topic in their regional and global meetings, showcasing how they are in tune with the emerging secret knowledge.  They can explain it.  They can write books about it.  They can explore its righteousness1a, explicate its slogans2a, develop pathways for submission1b and extol its authority2b.  They can conduct surveys in order to show how a slogan has struck a cord in social consciousness3a.  They can tell all how the insider feels3b.

0009 Modern sociology is such a curious field of inquiry.  It poses as a mirror3a of the worldc.  As such, it constructs its own sensible approach, in the same fashion as marxist religions.

0010  Five related works are available at www.smashwords.com.

A Primer on the Category Based Nested Form

A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

How To Define the Word “Religion”

Comments on Eric Santner’s Book (2016) “The Weight of All Flesh”

Comments on Peter Burfeind’s Book (2014) Gnostic America


Catholics Defend Adam Against Darwin: A Pitch

To date, it seems that Catholics have flown a white flag to scientism, especially when it comes to human evolution.  Nicanor Austriaco, O.P., strikes back, in a 2018 article appearing in the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.  This well-trained biologist delivers a blistering attack on the anti-essentialism of science.

Strangely, he locates an essence for the human in a 2016 book by two modern academics.  Why Only Us? is authored by two Harvard professors, Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky.  The first works on computer models for language.  The second is a famously political linguist.

Comments are in order.  However, in a blink of an eye for the world of academics, Marie George flexes her erudition by taking Austriaco to task on his interpretations of Thomas Aquinas.  She hands the Dominican a tar baby of scholastic qualifications.

Academic quarrels do not get better than this. Instead of one commentary, three are necessary, one for Marie George, one for Nicanor Austriaco OP, plus one for Berwick and Chomsky.  The category-based nested form and the first singularity offer insights not available to any of these authors.

Christians need not defend Adam against Darwinism.  Rather, Christians have an option that reveals Adam within an evolutionary framework.  This is the drama of An Archaeology of the Fall.  This is the hypothesis of the first singularity. Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The following are available at www.smashwords.com.

Comments on Nicanor Austriaco’s Essay (2018) “Adam After Darwin”

Comments on Marie George’s Essay (2020) “Aquinas’s Teachings on Concepts and Words”

Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) “Why Only Us?”


Saturn-Pluto conjunction and Jupiter-Pluto Conjunction in Capricorn, 2020: Resonances with the First Singularity

The gospels tell of magi, astrologers from the East, following a star (or maybe a planetary alignment).  Today, a similar phenomenon occurs.  Starting at the end of 2019, Saturn and Pluto enter conjunction in the constellation Capricorn.  Then, Jupiter enters the same constellation, coming close to Pluto later in 2020.  Astrologers watch wide-eyed.

Imagine the possibilities.

Saturn is the planet of civilizational systems.  Time eats its own.  The deep state runs, no matter who is in charge.  Then, it runs out of Time.

Pluto is the planet of death and birth, destruction and renewal.

Jupiter is the god of sovereign and worldly order.  His decrees are like bolts of lightning.  He rules the pantheon.  He enforces the laws.

Then, there is the constellation of Capricorn, the house of government.

Pictured as a goat, I imagine the constellation opening its doors to planners, workers, scientists and sensible thinkers. These people climb mountains, one step at a time.

But, the ancient image of Capricorn is far more curious.  The constellation has the head and torso of a goat.  It has the abdomen and tail of a fish.  For this reason, it is called the “sea-goat”.

This is the representation that I would like to discuss.

The ancient Greeks have a playful explanation for Capricorn.  Pan, already half-human and half-goat, finds himself in a tough spot.  Other gods transform into animals in order to escape the predicament.  When Pan tries, oops, he turns into half-goat half-fish.

Even further back in time, the Sumerian civilization has a god, Ea, who brings the arts of civilization to humans.  During the day, he comes on land.  Then, at night, he retires to the water.  Does that sound chimeric?

Now, I make a dramatic play, by asking, “Could both Ea and Capricorn stand for some event that the ancients forget, yet remember in their divine images?”

An interesting answer comes from Razie Mah in An Archaeology of the Fall and The First Singularity and its Fairy Tale Trace.

The bi-modal god, Ea, and the sea-goat, Capricorn, stand for the formation of the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia, around 7800 years ago.  Over the next three thousand years, the Ubaid becomes the Uruk and the Uruk becomes the Sumerian civilization.

So, how is the Ubaid culture both on land and in sea?  How is it half-goat and half-fish?

The Sumerian language provides a clue. It is a linguistic isolate.  It does not belong to any family of languages.

Why is this so?

It is a creole.  A creole forms when two disparate cultures are thrown together.  Trying to get along, they produce pidgin, pieces of language, that are sown together into a new language by later generations.  A creole fits the image of a chimera.

How did this happen?

During the Developed Neolithic, say nine or ten thousand years ago, the Persian Gulf is dry land.  A wide river valley holds a narrow gorge, carrying the flows of the Tigris, Euphrates and other rivers.  Two separate Mesolithic cultures settle the two habitats.  One comes from northern Mesopotamia.  These folks are farmers and stockbreeders.  They settle the valley.  Here is the goat.  The other comes along the coast, probably from the East.  These folks have reed boats and live off the marsh.  They settle the gorge.  Here is the fish.

Around eight thousand years ago, the ice age ends and the current interglacial begins.  The sea levels slowly and powerfully rise.  Sea water fills the gorge, then submerges the surrounding broad valley. These two cultures are thrown together.  Each culture loses its hand-speech talk.  The resulting creole, Sumerian, is the world’s first speech-alone language.

Yes, the Ubaid emerges from both land and sea with a new way of talking, speech-alone.  All their Neolithic and Epipaleolithic neighbors still talk with a combination of manual-brachial gesture and speech (that is, hand-speech talk). The semiotic differences between speech-alone talk and hand-speech talk are huge.  Speech-alone talk potentiates civilization in southern Mesopotamia.  Speech-alone talk spreads on the wings of mimicry to adjacent hand-speech talking cultures, then flies to all corners of the Earth, seeding unconstrained social complexity along the way.

Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Two gods stand at the threshold.  One dwells in Sumerian myth.  The other lingers in the heavens.

The end writes the beginning.  The beginning writes the end.

Todays’ astrologers watch as Saturn and Pluto come together, then Jupiter and Pluto, as well.  They join in the House of Capricorn.  What do the heavens portend?  Astrologers strain to imagine the possibilities.  Here, is another one to consider.  Capricorn resonates with the first singularity, the potentiation of all civilizations.  In this constellation, the planets align.