Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2020) “Derrida” (Part 1 of 5)

0001 A chapter on Derrida appears in Michael Millerman’s Book (2020) Beginning with Heidegger: Strauss, Rorty, Derrida and Dugin and the Philosophical Constitution of the Political (Arktos Press), pages 135-166.  This fourth chapter considers the writings of the French Jacques Derrida (1930-2004 AD) concerning the German Martin Heidegger (1889-1976).

Millerman’s book consists of a long introduction, followed by chapters on Martin Heidegger, Leo Strauss, Richard Rorty, Jacques Derrida and Alexander Dugin.  The latter chapters discuss what the other philosophers say about Heidegger.  The method sounds like a doctoral dissertation.

My interest, of course, is to associate features of the arguments to purely relational structures, such as the category-based nested form or the Greimas square.

0002 Here, I look only at chapter four entitled, “Derrida”.  Derrida comments on Heidegger in two notable incidents. First, Heidegger is mentioned in an essay comparing deconstruction to negative theology.  Second, Derrida writes an essay entitled, “Heidegger’s Ear”.

Millerman approaches the first incident with caution, asking (more or less), “Is it possible to see how Derrida locates himself in a different place than Heidegger?”

Locates himself?

In slang, the question is, “Where is he coming from?”

0003 Where is Derrida coming from?

The first incident of note is an essay by Derrida in a book, Derrida and Negative Theology, edited by Harold Coward and Toby Froshay (Albany: SUNY Press, 1992). The title of the essay is “How To Avoid Speaking: Denials”.  Here, Derrida responds to claims that deconstruction resembles negative theology.  He says no.  Apophatic mysticism is hyperessential.  Deconstruction is all about the machinations of language.

0004 Hyperessential?

In order to appreciate this comment in terms of purely relational structures.  I associate the above accusation and responseto Peirce’s category of secondness, the realm of actuality.  The category of secondness contains two contiguous real elements.  For Aristotle’s hylomorphe, the two real elements are matter and form.  I label the contiguity, [substance].  The nomenclature is matter [substance] form.

For apophatic mysticism, the form is the human, as a vessel, having emptied “himself” of all matters.

For deconstruction, I follow Ferdinand de Saussure’s (1857-1913 AD) definition of language as two arbitrarily related systems of differences, the spoken word (parole) and the corresponding thought (langue).  Parole corresponds to matter.  Langue corresponds to form.  [Arbitrary relation] serves as the contiguity.

0005 Here is a picture.

Figure 01

0006 Essence is substantiated form.

Derrida claims that negative theology is hyperessential.  This makes sense because the essence, {[emptiness] vessel2f}, has no corresponding esse_ce (a play on the Latin term, esse, representing [matter2m [substantiating]}.  As soon as matter appears in the slot, —-2m, then the contiguity becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to maintain, and something passes into the vessel, against all mystical admonishments saying, “Keep the vessel2f empty.”

Here is a picture of how esse_ce and essence play out in the realm of actuality2 for hylomorphism, apophatic mysticism and deconstruction.

Figure 02

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2020) “Derrida” (Part 5 of 5)

0031 What about the second incident (point 0003)?

The next essay that Millerman reviews is titled, “Heidegger’s Ear”.

Here, Derrida waxes on a snippet in Heidegger’s book, Being and Time, that mentions the voice of a friend whom every Dasein carries with it.

0032 To me, if Heidegger’s leap really opens a vista into the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, then Heidegger would have used the word, “gesture”, rather than “voice”.

Or, maybe, the word, “voice” is okay, since, before the first singularity, humans practice hand-speech talk.  Two modes of talking co-exist.  Cultural tradition determines which mode is more appropriate for any particular social situation.

0033 Derrida reads German.  So, he has an ear for Heidegger.  German (B), like all spoken languages, carries a conceptual apparatus (D).  So, Heidegger must allow Derrida into his pact (B), concerning openness to an inception (C), that is like a concept, but is not a concept, because it complements a secret (A) that makes us present (Da-) to being itself (-Sein) (D).

Because Derrida speaks German, he must be a “friend”.  But, Derrida finds that naive, because he can also be an enemy.  Derrida figures out that, if you speak the same language, then you can share secrets.  Heidegger says “friend” in the most naive way, as if the word reflects a state before the duality of friends and enemies.  It seems to me that Derrida could be a real enemy who infiltrated behind the defenses of an opposing camp. And, he knows it.

Derrida is a dangerous philosopher.  Everyone respects Derrida.  Everyone fears deconstruction.  Derrida approaches Heidegger as a “friend”, who speaks the same language.  Derrida knows that the fraternal order of philosophy has splintered.  First, everyone is a companion (or a compatriot).  Then, everyone is either a friend or an enemy.  Heidegger marks this transition with a German word: Geschlect.

0034 According to Derrida, Geschlect is a “mark”, a sign of division, a yellow patch for some and no patch for others.  Well, maybe the patch can be sex, race, species, genus, status, genealogy or community.  The yellow/no patch dualityrelies on concepts (that is, explicit abstractions).  Yet, certain phenotypic and physical tags are inceptual (that is, implicit abstractions).  But, explicit abstractions end up justifying these implicit abstractions.

0035 Here, I can see the threat of Derrida’s genius.  Concepts, as utterances2m [carrying] information2fare manifestations of Saussure’s definition of spoken language, parole2m [arbitrary relation] langue2f.   This implies that the apparent mechanical substance corresponding to [carry] is really grounded in the slippery substance of [arbitrary relation].  This is the nature of sensible construction in speech-alone talk.

Here is how Derrida’s Greimas square manifests as sensible construction.

Figure 14

0036 What does Geschlect do?

Geschlect traverses the topolitology of secrets.  In the city of Geschlect, there is a factory, turning pre-political feelingsinto conceptualized divisions among people.  Today, that factory is called “modern politics”.  It is run by, for and of the government.  But, it claims to be by, for and of the People.  Compatriots become friends and enemies.

0037 The voice of the compatriot, Heidegger’s “friend”, is embedded in the constitution of the human.  Prior to the first singularity, hand-speech talk relies on manual-brachial gestures.  Solidarity is guaranteed by one’s gaze.  Someone who word-gestures a falsehood is immediately exposed as one’s enemy.  How so?  Manual-brachial gestures are defined by what they picture or point to.  Word-gestures do not define their referents.  They picture and point to them.

In contrast, spoken words do not picture or point to anything.

0038 After the first singularity, spoken language relies on our innate sensibilities until… labor and social specialization starts to spin explicit abstractions, like threads on a spool, and speech becomes something like a secret.  You have to know the relation between the utterance and the information, in order to be a member of the club.  So, the arbitrary relation between parole and langue slowly, irrevocably, weaves the threads into conceptual apparatuses.

Everyone who speaks the same language starts as a compatriot.  But, two parties emerge, ones who are in tune with the conceptual apparatus and the ones who still imagine that our words picture and point to their referents.

0039 Derrida discovers a secret within the secret.  The conceptual apparatus is mechanistic.  And, like all machines, it can be constructed differently.  So, deconstruction is a technique to shake the conceptual apparatus, in order to expose the arbitrariness of its relations.  Concepts divide us. Deconstructed concepts unnerve us.

Heidegger discovers the foundation of the secret.  The secret is a pact, where information is known only by us, and that pact cannot be articulated in speech-alone words.  Instead of a concept, where the utterance is a conspiracy, Heidegger proposes an incept, where the pact manifests as inspiration.  An incept draws us into one inspiration.

0040 Heidegger has a word that is translated as “both strife and accord”.  I suppose that strife labels the struggle to keep the vessel empty. I suppose that accord is the happy moment when the vessel is full.   The word is “Walten“. 

Or perhaps, Walten is the originating unity of two real elements.  Perhaps I can imagine that these elements are 2m and vessel2f.  So the unity or the contiguity is [empty].  But also, imagine the unity of …known only to us2m and vessel2f.  The contiguity is [fill].

Either way, the originating unity of two real elements is inceptual.

Figure 15

No one can open someone else to an inception.  Inception is where the seed of conviction germinates.  No political philosopher has a recipe for an inceptual institution of the theologico-political domain.  No one, except for Jesus, has torn the veil woven by explicit abstraction.  In contrast, many theologians and politicians have quested for a magical token that empowers the veil and strands us in the domain of conceptual apparatuses.

0041 In our cutthroat world of concepts, people cling to their worldviews, ridicule other worldviews, and fail to notice that their conceptual apparatuses have closed them off from their inceptual heritage.  Concepts pose as things that bring us into organization.  But, is organization all there is?

Of late, the United States of America has a humorous tradition in this regard.  They name legislative decrees with the conceptual apparatus that they are going to replace.  For example, in 2001, the so-called “Patriot Act” is legislated and signed into law.  Twenty years later, a surveillance-oriented bureaucracy identifies members of the “make America great again” movement as “domestic terrorists”.

Yes, the utterance of “domestic terrorists” institutes a concept that identifies patriots as enemies of thier surveillance state.

0042 What does this imply?

Is Walten like a secret, that is, information known only to us?

Then, as fast as I can say, “Geschlect.”, there are two parties.  One party focuses on information.  One party focuses on the “known only by us” business.

How can companions come together after established nomenclature turns everyone into either friends or enemies?  As politics invades all aspects of society, each person asks, “Which worldview do I belong to?”  Cognitive machinations hustle propaganda and apologetics.  Some people get carried away.  The last thing they want is to be cut from the pact.  No one wants to get cut.  Plus, true believers are willing to sacrifice others to their cause.

How does a people become a people?

I suppose that theologico-political topolitologies are required.

Plus, it seems as if the secret allows me to visualize the topolitology of a Walten, an originating unity of two realities.

Here is one reality, corresponding to “information…”.

Figure 16

0043 Here is the other element, corresponding to “…known only by us”.

Figure 17

When does a Walten solidify its current theologico-political domain?

An accord, seeking to be filled with a conceptual apparatus (D), leads to calcification and total domination.

When does a Walten liquify its current theologico-political domain?

A struggle to be open to being filled by God’s meaning, presence and message (H) leads to revelation and new life.

0044 To the extent that Derrida reads German, Derrida is Heidegger’s companion.

What does Derrida see?

Heidegger’s “friend” can speak as either friend or enemy.  Geschlect says, “You are either friend or enemy.”   Walten says, “Please, remain a companion.”

0045 In one fashion, Derrida’s and Heidegger’s theologico-political constructions mirror one another.

I suspect that Derrida stays his desconstructive hand in recognition of this reality.

In another fashion, these two theological-political constructions derive from a single, undifferentiated, realness, to which we, in our current Lebenswelt, can never return.

We need deconstruction to combat our march towards death by a totalizing conceptual apparatus.  

We need inception to seed the fields of our open minds.

In the chapter on Derrida, Millerman finds good reason to start with Heidegger.

Recognize the possibility.


Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2020) “Rorty” (Part 1 of 3)

0001 This chapter appears in Michael Millerman’s Book (2020) Beginning with Heidegger: Strauss, Rorty, Derrida and Dugin and the Philosophical Constitution of the Political (Arktos Press).  The composition of the book sends a message.  A forty-nine page introduction is labeled as a preface, complete with Roman numerals.  The first chapter covers Heidegger and stands in the center of the book.  Then, chapters two through five covers the responses of four political philosophers to Heidegger’s academic labors (as well as his political affiliation).

Richard Rorty is discussed in the third chapter.  This chapter serves as a transition from the weighty chapters on Heidegger and Strauss to the surprising chapters on Derrida and Dugin.

0002 Rorty offers a change of style.  Rorty is an American philosopher.  This pleases me, since I write like an American, too.  I roll, roll, roll down the river of literary endeavors.  My paddles are purely relational structures, such as the category-based nested form and the Greimas square.

Consequently, Millerman refers to movies, rather than books.  And, if books must be mentioned, then novels come first.

0003 Oh, I should add, the first novel comes from the pen of Cervantes.  Don Quixote marks the start of the Age of Ideas.  In seventeenth-century Spain, two movements coincide.  On one hand, Baroque scholastics finally articulate the causality inherent in sign-relations.  On the other hand, Cervantes creates a new literary genre.

Perhaps, these two hands belong to a single entity.  The novelist represents the scholastic behind the mask of modernity.  Like the heroic character in V for Vendetta, there is no removing the mask.  The Spanish innovator spins away from truth (the scholastics were all about mind-independent being) and leaps towards happiness (the novelists are all about mind-dependent beings).

Is it any surprise that, in the next century, France produces a revolution with a similar attitude?  Then, two centuries later, today’s social democratic politics perform the same routine.

0003 Richard Rorty wrestles with a strange duality.  Politics is contextualized by two distinct masters, truth and reality.  Politics emerges from the potential of good (which goes with truth) and the potential of what can be done (which goes with reality).

Here is a picture of two nested forms.

Figure 01

0004 Of course, Rorty wants to step away from truth3 and find happiness in reality3.  But, one cannot take the mask without the face or the face without the mask.  One cannot say, “Look at the mask without thinking about the face.”

Here is where Rorty flounders.  His social democratic politics tell him that viable options are the only things that matter. But, as a philosopher, he must face the question as to which options are good.

0005 In short, politics is a single actuality that is composed of two distinct nested forms.  Neither nested form can situate the other.  So, the actualities for both nested forms fuse, creating one single contradiction-filled actuality, as described in the chapter on message in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”.

I call the following diagram, “an intersection”.

Figure 02

0006 Right away, I spy that the single actuality of politics2 veils two unspoken actualities that emerge from (and situate) the vertical and horizontal potentials.  These two actualites are overshone by politics2, in the same way that Mercury and Venus appear to disappear within the Sun in astrological conjunctions.  The technical term is “combustion”.

Here is a Greek parody of politics2.

Figure 03

0007 Yes, truth3V and reality3H exhibit different orbits around politics2.

According to Millerman, Rorty is a social democrat advocating for truthlessness and hopefulness.

0008 How does that statement mesh with the above intersection?  Rorty distains Heidegger’s romance with language and says that there is no such thing as a thing itself that can be put into language.  So forget esse_ces (beings substantiating) and essences (substantiated forms).  Indeed, forget righteousness.  The question is whether the thing is useful.  Or not.

At first, it seems that Rorty is only interested in the horizontal axis.

0009 But then, Rorty writes that there are three conceptions of the aim of philosophizing in the modern era.  These three are Husserl’s scientism, Heidegger’s poetics and Dewey’s pragmatism.  The latter two respond to the former.  Husserl idealizes scientists.  Heidegger extols poets.  Pragmatists, like Rorty, Dewey and James, prefer engineers.

Now, if I associate these embodiments into the above mystery, then I replace Mercury with the engineer and Venus with the poet, resulting the the following intersection.

Figure 04

0010 Once I diagram this, the contradictions become more apparent.  The Heideggerian venusian poet2V and the pragmatist mercurial engineer2H orbit an all encompassing solar politics2.  From the point of view of an astrologer, sometimes these inner planets run ahead of the solar presence, sometimes they lag behind the solar presence, and sometimes they are in conjunction with the solar presence.  Combustion!   The Sun’s transit through the constellations, plays this celestial drama over and over again, for those who watch the heavens.  For those who watch politics, the Earth orbits the sun.


Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2020) “Rorty” (Part 3 of 3)

0021 Of course, Heidegger would (if he could) return the insult, by calling Rorty a liberal propagandist.

After all, Rorty is not concerned with questions of truth3V, preferring issues concerning social consequences3H.

0022 Plus, Heidegger (if he could) would have regarded the imprisonment of Rorty and other social democratic philosophers as a matter of “petty details”.

Petty details?

In Heidegger’s view, the West has exhausted its options1H.  And, proof comes later in the title of Rorty’s book, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity.   Are these options?  Or, are they signs of exhaustion?  Compare that title to Being and Time.

0023 The squishiness of the former title is made worse when Rorty’s dichotomy of choiceprivate versus public, appears to align with the potentials of good1V and options1H, respectively.  Is truth3V private?  Is reality3V public?  If so, then I ask, “Are these affirmations the poisonous fruits of the Treaty of Westphalia?”  The Treaty of Westphalia marks the start of the modern era, almost four hundred years ago.

Perhaps, Rorty inadvertently testifies to Heidegger’s proposition.  The West has exhausted its options1H.  Politics2 is the intersection of the actualities of reality3H and truth3V, arising from the potential of viable options1H and good1V.  Without a good1V, there are no options1H.  So, politics2 is dead.  But, our love (philo-) of wisdom (-sophy) endures.  So, it is only a matter of time before politics2 rises again.

Shout it from the rooftops!

Politics2 is dead.  Long live politics2.

0024 My thanks to Michael Millerman for his excellent chapter into how Rorty views Heidegger, chapter three in Beginning with Heidegger: Strauss, Rorty, Derrida and Dugin and the Philosophical Constitution of the Political (2020, Arktos Press, London), pages 97-134.


Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…Dimensions of Dugin’s Populism” (Part 1 of 9)

0001 In late 2022, Americans loathe the Russian civilization because the Soviet Union was a existential enemy during the Third Battle Among the Enlightenment Gods: The Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies (1945-1989 AD).

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, not much has been done to alter Americans’ fears, even though lots of water has passed beneath the bridge of history.  Indeed, much has been done expressly to conceal those waters, full of greed, ambition, illusion and delusion.  The modern intelligensia is guilty of sins of omission.

0002 Here is a brief remediation of that sin, which, unfortunately, may itself be a transgression.

When the Cold War ends in 1989, many difficult to comprehend events follow.  Boris Yeltsin supervises a firesale of Russian state property.  Maybe, “firesale” is not the right word.  “A mind-bending transfer of ownership” may be better.  Soon, oligarchs corral entire industries and markets.  Russian GDP falls like no tomorrow.

Then, before the wholesale transfer of Russian commodity wealth is fully consummated, Vladimir Putin steps from under the wings of Yeltsin’s weakness and corruption.  Following a series of explosive events, Putin manages to secure leadership of the listing ship of the Russian State.  He rights the boat, sending many overboard (so to speak).

The predatory wolves of the American Empire do not forget.  They lick their wounds.  They plan their revenge.

0003 Oh, so that is the reason why nearly every mouthpiece of the American Regime denounces Russia, as if it is still the Soviet Union of old.  When the Americans win, they want total surrender.  So, the American citizen remains informed that the Cold War never really came to a conclusion.

Just as America once looked to the East and saw an “iron curtain”, Russia now looks West and experiences a “word curtain”.

0004 Of course, this brief transgression into history is required to introduce the tragic philosopher, Alexander Dugin.  From 1989 on, Dugin formulates and proposes new ideas concerning the fact that Russia did not totally surrender to America’s empire religion.  His struggles culminate in a book that finally breaks through the Western word-curtain about how bad Russia is.  That book is titled, The Fourth Political Theory.  First published in Russian, an English translation comes out in 2012.

Three years later, Razie Mah electronically publishes Comments On Alexander Dugin’s Book (2012) The Fourth Political Theory.  This commentary is available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0005 Simultaneously, as well as more amazingly, Michael Millerman decides to make the philosophical work of Alexander Dugin the topic of his doctorate in philosophy.  Oh, that does not go well.  How dare this young intellect challenge the current narrative.  Dugin should go into a box.  He is a fascist.  Or rather, a communist.  Or something similarly unsavory, like a Eurasianist.  Yes, that box should never be opened.

0006 Michael Millerman, like Pandora, opens the box.  And the last monstrosity to emerge is hope.

He actually graduates with his doctorate.

The subsequently blacklisted Millerman starts his own school.  The cancelled Millerman publishes the book that I currently examine: Inside Putin’s Brain: The Political Philosophy of Alexander Dugin (2022: Millerman School).  Yes, Millerman starts a school.  Look and see.

0007 In these blogs, I comment on chapter two, titled, “The Ethnosociological and Existential Dimensions of Dugin’s Populism”.  This chapter is originally published in Telos (Winter, 2020).

In order for the reader gain an acquaintance with the Greimas square, I recommend blogs appearing at www.raziemah.com for January 2023.  These blogs include Looking atAlex Jones’s Book (2022) The Great Reset and Notes on Daniel Esterlin’s Book (2020) 2045 Global Projects At War.


Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…Dimensions of Dugin’s Populism” (Part 9 of 9)

0050 Eden, the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, is where we, in our current Lebenswelt, come from, but cannot return to.  The myth of Adam and Eve says it all.  

The ethnos is where the narod comes from and cannot return to.

Figure 17

0051 The implications weave together psychology, sociology and biology.

How can the ethnos (D), the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, serve as the transit between the narod, emerging in our current Lebenswelt (C), and the person as objectified subject (B)?

Does each -ism appeal to our innate imaginations by offering an explicit abstraction, a forbidden fruit, that is desirous to the eyes, tastes sweet, and is desired to make one wise?

Does a narod (C) accepts the Luciferian suggestions (B) in the process of becoming a people (A)?

0052 Dugin proposes his fourth political theory in a world broken by our appetites for explicit abstractions.  We have been sold tickets (B) back to Eden (D).  Where do our travels bring us?  Our travels meet a flaming sword that turns in all directions.  A cherubim blocks the way.

Dugin speaks to the people.

His proposal has ethnosociological and existential dimensions.

We are more than individuals, class members, citizens and role-bearers.

We are a narod, on a quest to find who we are supposed to be.

Who do you say that we are?

0053 My thanks to Michael Millerman for his excellent summary of these two dimensions of Alexander Dugin’s political philosophy.


Looking at Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s Music Video (2022) “Unholy” (Part 1 of 1)

0001 The Grammy Awards Ceremony is broadcast February 5, 2023.  Sam Smith and Kim Petras win the grammy in the category of Best Pop Duo or Group Performance for their song, “Unholy”.  Their grammy performance quickly goes viral, with many Christian podcasters dubbing the performance… say nothing of the ceremony… “Satanic”.

To wit, I now examine the official video for this song (not the Grammy performance) for the unholy message that the song sends.  My conclusion is that the moniker, “Satanic”, may apply.  But, so does the word, “political”.  This music video spins an artistic message, at once cryptic and revealing.  I strive to delineate this message, using the methodology of the category-based nested form.

0002 This music video is an actuality.

According to A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form (available at smashwords and other e-work venues), in order to understand (or appreciate) an actuality2, one must figure out its normal context3 and potential1.  So, this is what I intend to do.  My determination of normal contexts3 and potentials1 is purely speculative.  Do not take them as judgment or doctrine.

I start with a guess.   The normal context3 is politics.  The potential1 is for ‘something Satanic to be exposed’.  Thus, the normal context of politics3 brings the pop-music video, “unholy”2, into relation with the possibilities inherent in ‘an exposure of something Satanic’1.  Maybe, Satan shows his plans for the future.  Who knows?

Here is a picture.

Figure 01

0003 Politics?

The song is released on September 22, 2022, six weeks before the November midterm elections in the USA.  The November 8, 2022, elections occur at the time of a lunar eclipse.

0004 So, I suspect that politics3 includes astrology3.

Several astrological squares and oppositions are in play on September 22, 2022.  Here is a picture of some of them.

Figure 02

0005 The Saturn-Uranus square is at the top of the list, since it dominates the last half of 2021 and almost all of 2022, including the span from September through November.  In the following figure, a zodiac sign is the normal context3, a planet is the actuality2, and the potential pertains to the astrological characteristics of such an arragement1. When two planets are at right angles to one another, it is almost as if they work at cross purposes.

Here is a picture.

Figure 03

0006 So, the release date offers clues to the potential of ‘stellar arrangements’1.  Whatever Satan is preparing, it is simultaneously a cold calculation and a steaming pile of manure.

0007 Speaking of cold calculations, the video begins.

A woman in white gets out of a car.  Is she the daemon of the American Democratic Party?  What is a white woman?  A woman who has abandoned Jesus and found… shall I say?… someone willing to put a warm coat of manufactured virtueupon her?  She is obviously highly educated.  She is well manicured.  As he goes to park the car, she enters the foyer.  She reaches into her pocket and lifts out a playbill (an official narrative) and a condom from the Body Shop (protection, of sorts).

0008 Here is a diagram of the first of five movements in the video itself.

Figure 04

0009 Well, isn’t that the way the music video starts?

Biden is a good looking man.  He drives the car and parks it at the Body Shop.  He has been there before.  He knows the price of things.  The lyrics mention daddy.  Daddy Biden.  Shall I call him Biden Joe?  Biden goes up the stairs and passes the whores of various nations.  Can I make out China, Iran and Ukraine?  Miss Ukraine devours the blossoming youth of her nation.

Biden Joe is tempted.  And, he knows how to play the game.

Figure 05

0010 Someone pulls on Biden Joe’s tie.  Then, a vision captures his gaze.  Biden is in a booth, overlooking a theater.  He engages two active parties (Ukraine and China?), in pay for play.  Biden sees Biden.  Joe observes Hunter.  Both are the same person.

Say what?

0011 Suddenly, Sam Smith, perched in a balcony seat in the theater of the Body Shop, captures the viewer’s gaze then hurtles it towards the blue center-stage, where Kim Petras descends upon a swing in the shape of a heart.  Her madonna-like visage lands on the top of an automobile.  American, no doubt.  Biden Hunter is in the back seat, in full erotic rutting.  He has what it takes to satisfy the material girl.  He is in deep doo-doo (English, for “fumier”).

Figure 06

0012 In the fourth movement, Biden is spent and on display, mimicking the Hangman of the Tarot Cards.  The Hangman card is often interpreted as the potential of an unusual revelation.  Here, the revelation is compromising.  Biden is exposed (on top of the car, for all to see) as who he is (a load of manure, for all to smell).

Figure 07

0013 The drama is not over.

The spent handsome man, simultaneously the daddy and the man-child, lays on stage as completely revealed to an American public as a liar and a cheat.  It is written on the car.  The entire dance troupe awaits the next moment.  The audience in the theater (perhaps, the mavens of corporate media) applaud.  What a performance!

Then, the white woman walks up the aisle towards the stage.  Who knows how she got there?  But, she is there to render a judgment.  She steps on stage and observes the prone corpse of her man, in a pure Saturn-square-Uranus pose of cold calculation looking upon someone who could not keep his business clean.

She turns and faces the audience.

She has a choice.

0014 Here, we see the crux.  Here, we see the materialization of ‘something’ that Satan wishes to be revealed.  It is all about choice.

Does the white woman, a key demographic that remains wedded to the Democratic Party, repudiate the man that she was led to believe in, and embrace the perverse machinations of the Body Shop, the apparatus for the temptation of the father and for the corruption of the son?

Or, does she repent?

0015 Here is the message.

Figure 08

0016 The curtain falls.  But, there is one small issue.  A foot of the corpse remains on display, indicating that what has been exposed is not for certain.  Not even Satan knows the future for certain.  Sam Smith and Kim Petras are big fans of the projected outcome.  But, the story has only begun.

0017 Now, I recapitulate.

First, I place the work of art under examination into the slot for actuality in a category-based nested form.

Figure 09

0018 I make an initial guess.  My guess is informed by Christian podcasters commenting on the Grammy ceremony.

Then , I proceed to imagine the normal context3 and potential1 of various aspects2 (here, movements2 within the drama).  Do these cohere with my initial guess?  Some will say, “Yes.”  Others will say, “No”.

0019 Here is the breakout for the realm of actuality2.

Figure 10

0020 Do these cohere with the realness of the music video?

Yes, these are the actualities2 that I endeavor to put into normal contexts3 and potentials1.

0021 What does this imply?

The astrology of the time of release frames the movements in term of a square between Saturn in Aquarius and Uranus in Taurus.  The artist pours out a beautiful and captivating music video with two figures represented as one.  Yes, that one handsome man, like a bull, is simultaneously Daedalus, who fashions the wings of escape, and Icarus, who uses the wings, fashioned by his father, to fly too close to the Sun.  To me, this associates to the contemporary story of Joe and Hunter Biden.  Oh, did I mention that Jupiter in Aries is in opposition with the Sun in Libra?

And what of the woman in white?

Does the white woman represent one of the most faithful demographics wed to the Democratic party?

She opens and closes the music video.

0022 Here is the breakout for the realm of normal context3.

Figure 11

0023 What does that imply?

The normal context3 of astrology addresses a post-Christian world.  In this pagan world, certain bonds, certain promises, and certain rituals are presumed to be substantial.  But they are not.  The woman in white lives in a world of pretensions.  The playbill recounts an official narrative.  And, the condom?  That is official, too.

The Body Shop manifests the will to power in the furnishings of materialism.  The philosophy of the will to power asks one to pay for entrance into the Body Shop.  Daddy is hot.  Daddy cannot hide his business.  But, he retains restraint.  Not so, his son, who is the same as the father.  The symbolism of the double is striking.  Temptation for the father translates into lust with the son.  The father and the son are both out of control.  Both are to be exposed and ruined.


On the stage of the Body Shop.

0024 Where does that leave the white woman?

She faces a choice.

And, that choice reveals ‘something’ Satanic.

Satan dreams that her choice comes to pass.

0025 Here is the breakout for the realm of potential1.

Figure 12

0026 The story of the stars offers a narrative of fate.

In our world of pretensions, playbills offer narratives and condoms offer protection.

From fate?

0027 The Body Shop seals the fate of the one man, who is really two.  Daddy wants something to keep himself warm.  The son wants someone to cool himself off.   But, the selves are no different.  They both subscribers to the Body Shop.  For them, the choice is already made.  Their destiny is certain.

0028 But, is the same fate necessary for the woman?

I don’t think so.

If anything, this advertisement for the Body Shop aims to foreclose any option that prevents the destiny that Satan plans for her.

She has a choice.

Unholy or holy?

Will she signal her manufactured virtue by repudiating her own ruined man, while simultaneously bonding with the unholy Body Shop?

Or, will she mourn the loss of her pretensions, and appeal to the love of God?

0029 I reiterate.  These associations and implications are purely speculative.  They are to be taken as an act of appreciation, rather than a judgment or a doctrine.  My thanks to Sam Smith, Kim Petras, along with their collaborators, for producing this engaging music video.  Here is a work of art worth examining.

With that said, I recount my initial guess.

Figure 13

0030 For those interested in trying their own hand at this diagrammatic method of art appreciation, please consult A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

Here are some other music videos worth trying the method on.

“I Wanna Get Better” by the Bleachers

“Doom days” by Bastille

“Welcome to the Black Parade” by My Chemical Romance

“This is Gospel” by Panic at the Disco, plus its sequel

“Hi Ren” by Ren

0031 If the reader wants to suggest other music videos worthy of examination using this method, please e-mail Razie Mah at the address that appears in the Primers.


Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…On Strauss and Dugin” (Part 10 of 10)

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.

Recognize the possibility.


Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “Heidegger, Left and Right” (Part 1 of 2)

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.  


Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “Heidegger, Left and Right” (Part 2 of 2)

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 its own 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.