Before it opens, I want to thank Betsy DeVos for taking this reader beyond the notion of school choice and into the dynamics of educational freedom1c. There is more to be discovered in this new jurisdiction, standing outside the prison of big government3c (il)liberalism1c.
0056 Of course, the curtain may never open. People may decide that it is better to live as slaves under the appearance of freedom. But, that collective decision only assures the experts that appearances are no longer necessary. Experts are trained to know these things. Certain experts are prepared to make us slaves to the identities that they have manufactured for us.
0057 Be that as it may, the following diagram presents (what I imagine) is behind the curtain. Betsy DeVos’s educational interscope is a vision to behold.
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.
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.
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.
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 they 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 email@example.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 Matthew B. Crawford, at University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, publishes an essay at the website, UnHerd, on May 21, 2022. The website is worth investigating. Crawford is worth reading.
0002 But, that is not my only motive for this sequence of blogs.
It turns out that well-organized writers provide excellent material for triadic diagrams. These blogs aim re-articulate Crawford’s argument, following the technique of association and implication. The method is the same as with the other blog this month, concerning Vigano’s speech on how Vatican II serves the agenda of the Great Reset crowd.
0003 The title of Crawford’s essay is displayed in the header. The subtitle reveals the nature of the endgame. Liberal individualism has an innate tendency towards authoritarianism. That tendency manifests as real behavior.
0004 What is the real behavior?
Italian Giorgio Agamben (b. 1942) captures its essence with the political philosophical… or is it theological?.. label, “state of exception”. During the past eighty years, emergency declarations become more and more the norm. An emergency declaration inaugurates a state of exception and provides cover for top-down programs of social transformation.
0005 What do emergency-justified “liberal” projects aim to accomplish?
The core of the “liberal” regime is both political and anthropological: to remake humans.So, the answer depends on the meaning of “make”.
Two key political philosophers articulate two visions.
0008 John Locke (1632-1704 AD) regards humans as self-governing creatures. Humans are endowed with reason. Commonsense allows us to rule ourselves. Democracy is the mode of government most suitable for reasonable citizens.
Liberals remake humans by changing their votes.
Locke’s position may be re-articulated as a nested form. A nested form? See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
Here is the nested form. The normal context of human nature3 brings the actuality of commonsense2 into relation with the potential of a form of governance suited for self-governing people1. Democracy1 labels that potential1. Democracy1 is the potential of a state arising from self-governing people1.
Here is a diagram.
0009 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679 AD) claims that each human is vulnerable, especially in regards to other humans. Every person is vulnerable to the ambitions of other people. We need a state to protect us (from one another).
Liberals remake humans asking the government to protect them from harm.
Hobbes’s position may be re-articulated as a nested form.
The normal context of the state of nature3 brings the vulnerability of each person (especially with respect to other people)2 into relation with the possibility that the state will protect us (from ourselves)1. Hobbes has a label for a form of governance that manifests the potential of protecting us from one another. He calls it1 “leviathan”. Leviathan1 is the potential of a state capable of protecting us (from one another)1.
Here is a picture.
0010 From its inception, the liberal civic religion holds both Locke’s and Hobbes’s positions as a mysterious union. Of course, this union is filled with contradictions that cannot be resolved. But, that is the nature of mystery.
What is a mystery?The chapter on message, in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, describes a relational structure corresponding to mystery. An intersection of two nested forms portrays a mystery.
0011 What is the relation between the following two nested forms?
Remember that democracy1 is the potential of a state arising from self-governing people1 and leviathan1 is the potential of a state capable of protecting us (from one another)1.
0012 Enlightenment liberals know that each nested form does not emerge from and situate the other.
The normal contexts are different. For example, the word, “nature”, in the two normal contexts, has different meanings, presences and messages.
Similarly, the potentials are different.
For example, the second amendment of the original American Constitution says that all citizens can own and carry guns.
On the one hand, any rational person has the right to defend “himself”, especially against those who would take “his” property (such as a zealous government official). That’s democratic.
On the other hand, a zealous government official may be commissioned to protect “vulnerable persons”. Vulnerable persons may be conditioned to fear people carrying guns. The self-acknowledged vulnerable folk may demand that the zealous government official take the guns (property) away from other citizens. That’s leviathan.
The Constitution rules in favor of democracy.
0013 So, how do the two nested forms relate to one another?
Enlightenment liberals know that both nested forms constitute a single, contradiction-ridden entity. I call this actuality2′, “the individual”.
The individual2′ is an actuality that is constituted by the intersection of two nested forms. The intersection binds two independent actualities. According to the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, intersections associate to the message underlying the word. Intersections are mysteries.
0014 The construction may be also be portrayed in the following fashion.
Now, that looks like an intersection.
This diagram conveys the mystery underlying the liberal civic religion, which accompanies the spread of democracy in the modern Age of Ideas.
0015 Usually, an intersection serves as an actuality2 in a category-based nested form.
Here is a picture.
0016 But, according to the chapter on presence in the e-book, How To Define The Word “Religion”, the individual in communityA belongs to firstness in the following undifferentiated nested form. Each element in the figure below designates an interscope (a nested form composed of nested forms).
Yes, the mystery of liberalism2′ applies to the tier related to firstnessA. It2′ resonates with the actualities contained in the interscope for the individual in communityA. The comparison will be further developed, later.
0017 Since the liberal tradition is a civic religion, liberalism also belongs to the societyC tier.
The societyC tier contains two types of religion, ones above the sovereignbC (suprasovereigncC) and those below the sovereignbC (infrasovereignaC).
The three levels of the societyC tier are (from top to bottom) suprasovereigncC, sovereignbC and infrasovereignaC.
In comparison, for the individual in communityA tier, the three levels are judgmentcA, perceptions and phantasmsbA, and sensations, decodings, impressions and feelingsaA.
“Decodings” convert what someone speaks into a meaning, presence and message underlying the statement.
0018 I offer this comparison because liberalism is a religion on the societyC tier. Yet, a core mystery of liberalismcoincides with the virtual nested form, in the realm of actuality, for the individual in communityA tier.
So, allow me to juxtapose the virtual nested forms in the realm of actuality, for both the societyC and individual in communityA tiers.
0019 So, the question arises, “Is liberalism a suprasovereign or an infrasovereign religion?”
This answer is both. Liberalism consists of many different institutions3aC, striving to remake humanity1aC, according to diverse organizational objectives2cC. The variety of causes is enormous, from teaching people proper manners to ending human trafficking. These causes appeal to the commonsense2V and the awareness of vulnerability2H characterizing individuals2′.
Only fools have no commonsense2V. Only sociopaths have no awareness of vulnerability2H.
So all liberal institutions, appealing to anyone who is not a fool or a sociopath, share a relational object2cC, the mysterious intersection of Locke’s and Hobbes’s nested forms.
Furthermore, this relational object2cC, is an actuality that associates to the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality for the individual in communityA tier.
0020 Remember, the technical definitions of democracy1V(2cC) and leviathan1H(2cC) are:
Democracy1V(2cC) is the potential of self-governance or the potential of a state arising from the cooperation of self-governing people. Another way to describe this term is the potential of being sensible1V(2cc). Only fools are not reasonable.
Leviathan1H(2cC) is the potential of a state that will protect us (from one another). Another way to describe this term is the potential of feelings of security1H(2cc). Only sociopaths dismiss such feelings.
0021 We thought-align to the liberal objectrel2cC by applying commonsense2V and being aware of our vulnerabilities2H. In doing so, we embrace the technical definitions of both democracy1V(2cC) and leviathan1H(2cC).
0022 With this denkalignment in mind, Crawford raises the question (more or less), “How stable is the individual?”
0023 The individual2cC is the object that brings the modern nation state into relation. Liberalism stands at the heart of every legitimate nation-state.
Liberal policies operate in the arena of leviathan1V. These policies must gain the assent in a democracy1H.
Liberal agendas touch base with feelings of peace and security1V. Peace and security provide motives for adopting a particular policy. These agendas must be reasonable and sensible1H. They must not defy commonsense2V.
0024 For example, the liberal civil rights movement in the USA during the 1950s and 1960s demand that the leviathan (the courts) overturn discriminatory laws (“Jim Crow”) in southeastern states. Protests peacefully threaten civic order1H. The liberal civil-rights movement appeals to commonsense1V and Christian values.
0025 Christian values?
The concept of the individual is conceived within the womb of the Christian tradition. The Church gives birth to the individual. Through the sacraments, an individual can come into mystical union with the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. The Church delivers a template for commonsense action and for peace of heart in the political realm. But, it cannot impose its template. The leviathan can.
The liberal civil rights movement says, “According to commonsense and Christian values, every person, even the descendants of slaves, are individuals (hence, citizens).”
0026 The liberal civil-rights movement also relies on legal warfare that challenges the so-called “Jim Crow Laws”, supports legislation to assure civil rights in federal jurisdictions and undermines apparently “unequal” separate educational institutions.
0027 The civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s succeeds in implementing its organizational objective2aC and remakes humans, that is, re-orients individuals in communityA.
The concept of the individual, liberalism’s relational object2cC remains intact as individuals in communityA change alignment on the content, situation and perception levels.
Here is a liberal movement that successfully remade humans by changing individual hearts and minds.
0028 Unfortunately, the use of lawfare, short for “legal warfare”, during the civil-rights movement, calls the stability of the individual2cC into question.
Subsequent movements follow under the banner of “civil-rights”. None carry the same legitimacy. Each defies commonsense1V. The federal government gains in scope and power, promising to reduce the vulnerability of its citizens to a diverse range of threats, from industrial pollution, to financial distress, to systemic discrimination, to lack of “equity, and to more and more, until finally, to the sudden appearance of a novel coronavirus that can be “diagnosed” by a newly marketed polymerase chain reaction test (that, everyone learns later, also tests positive for influenza).
0029 The leviathan’s response to the last threat, according to Crawford, unravels the mystery.
The intersection unravels into a resolution, where one nested form emerges from (and situates) the other. A two-level interscope results. One nested form goes into the content level. The other occupies the situation level. The two-level interscope is discussed in A Primer on Sensible on Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0030 Say what?
To start, what would produce the conditions where a mystery resolves into a heresy?
The intersection2 is the union of two actualities2, so it2 should enter the slot for actuality2 in a nested form. So if the normal context3 shifts, then the internal dynamics of the actuality2 may change.
Crawford suggests that the recent political response to the novel coronavirus completes a historic transition, from modern liberalism3 to hypermodern (some would say, “postmodern”) technocratic progressivism3.
0031 Here is a picture.
0032 In liberalism3, the goal is to move the mystery2, in a spiritual sort of way, by exploiting democracy’s and leviathan’s abilities to remake humans1. Appeal to the people’s commonsense. Set limits to what is acceptable. Offer inspiration. Apply peer-pressure. Certainly, liberals think that they are smarter (or better, more enlightened) than other citizens. But, they respect the wisdom of tradition, particularly the Christian tradition. Indeed, liberalism3 seeks to practically implement the Christian vision in a fallen world, by calling the individual to be reasonable and by cajoling individuals to recognize their weaknesses.
0033 In technocratic progressivism3b the goal is to move vulnerable persons2b, in an efficient sort of way, by using the leviathan1b to situate the impulses of human nature3a. Insist that commonsense2a is defined by technocratic calculations1b. Frame every challenge as a fear-inducing crisis. Offer scientific and technical explanations, using terminology that confounds the literal meanings of words. Insist that alternate policies have dire consequences. Label the opposition, “malevolent”.
0034 The result is a new relational structure, “the unraveled individual”, which casts a shadow upon the originating mystery.
Vulnerable persons2b virtually emerge from (and situate) commonsense2a.A mystery unwinds into a heresy.
0035 A mystery resolves into a heresy. An intersection unravels into a two-level interscope. One nested form goes into the content level. The other nested form enters the situation level. Two configurations are possible. Typically, one predominates.
What is a heresy?
You tell me. The answer appears before you.
0036 In the heresy of technocratic progressivism3, leviathan1b virtually situates democracy1a.
What is leviathan1b?
Leviathan1b is the potential of a state that will protect us (from one another)1b. Another way to describe this term is the potential of feelings of security1b, in a world filled with sociopaths2a.
0037 The implication is that human nature3a coheres with purely calculated judgments2cA, dispassionate perceptions2bAand stoically accepted sensations and decodings2aA.
Such dedication to reason means that humans are basically sociopaths, unable to register the emotional reactions of others. There is no way that these sociopaths can govern themselves. Therefore, democracy1a, the potential of self-governance1a or the potential of a state arising from people being reasonable or sensible1a, must be virtually situated by a leviathan1b, underlying a state of nature3b.
Human nature3a is sociopathic3a.
The state of nature3b is a state of fear3b.
0038 Yes, the state of fear3b, which describes what the leviathan1b apparently aims to prevent, becomes the normal context favored by technocratic progressivism3, as it3brings the actuality of the unraveled individual2 into relation with the potential of ‘remaking humans’1.
0039 Surely, this does not makes sense. Yet, it is precisely what Crawford witnesses during the lockdowns.
Human nature2a is ruthlessly3b suppressed by sovereign acts and decrees from a department of the leviathan1b aiming to protect vulnerable people2b, on the basis of a threat to health from the state of nature3b. Lockdowns and mask requirements violate commonsense2a, yet anyone questioning the sovereign acts and decrees is regarded as a sociopath1a, who does not care about the health of vulnerable people2b.
I suppose that Crawford’s witness implies that the state of nature3b is a state of fear3b that, contrary to rational calculation3a, arises from the potential of a state that aims to promote feelings of security1band to provide both material and psychological safe harbor for vulnerable people2b.
Does that sound like lockdowns and stimulus checks?