0001 According to Neoplatonic legend, the descent of the soul starts with a small immaterial gem resting on an undefinable pillow in the presence of transcendental beauty. Then, a trap door opens and the little source of illuminationbegins to fall. As it descends, it accrues matter. Matter enters form.
One may say that the matter is evil and the soul, good, and conclude that the immortal soul becomes encased in corruptible matter. But, the story is more complicated, because the term, “matter” slyly includes the capacity to become entangled with purely relational being. Matter holds the capacity for meaning. Matter substantiates form. So Christians, following the complication, witness the baby as bearing a message. The message? Baptize me.
0002 The book before me is Brian Kemple’s The Intersection of Semiotics and Phenomenology: Peirce and Heidegger in Dialogue, published in 2019 by Walter de Gruyter Press (Boston/Berlin). The masterwork is dedicated to the memory of John Deely (1942-2017 AD), who served as Kemple’s professor.
0003 The book presents a complex argument. I, a simpleton, fixate on the titular word, “intersection”.
For me, the term has a technical definition, as formulated in the chapter on message in the e-book How To Define The Word “Religion” (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues). An intersection is a single actuality composed of two actualities, each with its own category-based nested form.
See APrimer on the Category-based Nested Form.
0004 A photon is an example of an intersection of two actualities: a wave and a particle. The normal context of a diffraction apparatus3 brings wave properties of light2 into relation with the potential of ‘observations of wavelengths’1. The normal context of a metal plate3 brings particle properties of light2 into relation with potential ‘observations of the photo-electric effect’1.
0005 Here is a picture.
0006 Here is another way to look at the photon as intersection.
0007 In the following blogs, I will endeavor to visualize whether Kemple’s use of the term, “intersection”, coheres with this technical definition.
In order to do so, I will locate two category-based nested forms, one for both Peirce and one for Heidegger, and see whether the two actualities meld into one.
0020 The term, Bildendwelt, sounds like the concatenation of the words, “Bilden” and “dwelt”, as in the English statement, “I dwelt in that Bilden, before it came crashing down.”
In order to appreciate my humor, consider the October 1, 2022, blog at www.raziemah.com, titled, “Fantasia in G Minor: A speech written for Gunnar Beck MEP”.
Da Bilden is coming down!
Oh, I meant to say… the Bildendwelt makes no sense at all.
0021 So much for wordplay.
The compound-word, Bildendwelt stands, waiting to be refined in the furnace of postmodern use.
0022 The third division of Kemple’s book weaves together divisions one and two, titled World and Sign, into an intersection. In the process, Kemple focuses on two elements in the following figure: Sein1V and sign1H.
0023 To me, Kemple’s focus is remarkable, because Being1V and triadic relations1H are crucial for bringing our lineage from Umwelt, to Lebenswelt, and further into Bildendwelt. Indeed, I wonder whether these compound terms should be used to label the single actuality of Peirce’s experience2H and Dasein2V.
0024 But, let me not ignore one further possibility, the single actuality is us.
Here is a list of labels for the single actuality.
0025 Now, I can portray our descent.
Imagine us, as purely spiritual illuminations, perched on undefinable pillows, in the presence of transcendent beauty in an era when all time is now. A trap door opens and we descend into Being and Time. As we fall, we accrete two actualities, coinciding with Peirce’s experience following his realization that signs are real1H and with Heidegger’s vision of Dasein1V. These actualities are full of contradictions.
As we descend through Being and Time, we accrue World and Sign. We pass through our primordial Umwelt, the Lebenswelt that we evolve in, the first singularity, our current Lebenswelt and now, our Bildendwelt. Descent with modification. Then we are born, in the present, and each one of us bears a message. Baptize me.
0026 What does baptism do?
Baptism cleanses us of Gestell, the grammars of our world, carrying temptation, misdirections and lures that entrap us, confound us, and, in the end, convince us that the truth can never be found.
Truth is just a spoken word. We create our own “truth”. Spoken words are merely projections of our Innerwelt upon that which is outside ourselves. After temptation fixes our occasions of sin, after our own projections redirect the projections of others and weave a veil of reality, and after we begin to believe in our own self-divinizing speculative grammar, we construct artifacts that validate our spoken worlds. We build our own prison. Heidegger calls it, Gestell.
0027 When the waters of baptism pour over an infant, the baby often cries. The baby represents all of us.
The waters of baptism disturb. Dasein2V! We enter a world perfused with signs. We are welcomed into a world where the material finds meaning in the immaterial. The human niche is the potential of triadic relations. How all encompassing will Peirce’s experience2H be? We stand on the threshold of a new age of understanding.
Kemple offers the reader a portrait of John Deely’s vision, in a book that lives up to its title, in more ways than one. Bravo!
0001 Professor Gad Saad is an expert in applying evolutionary psychology to contemporary consumer behavior. He publishes a book, titled, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. The cover of the book is adorned with a graphic. A hand holds one end of a thread that goes on to become a line drawing of the human neocortex. Is the thread going into the head? Or, is the thread (of common sense) coming out of the head?
I suppose I have to read the book to find out.
0002 Saad gets into the push-pull operation in chapter four, titled, “Anti-Science, Anti-Reason and Illiberal Movements”. He lists four contemporary academic beings… er… parasites: postmodernism, social constructivism, radical feminism and transgender activism. Each movement… er… parasite is founded on a demonstrable falsehood. Each desires to be free from reality.
For these comments, I use gender as an example.
0003 In order to diagram these statements, I consult A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction. These primers, by Razie Mah, are available at smashwords and other e-book venues. They are not long. They are very informative.
0004 A parasite feeds off a host.
The host goes with the content-level. The parasite places content in an alternate situation.
0005 I begin with the host. The host takes the actuality of men and women2a, which emerges from a biological distinction (which, in turn is an actuality in another nested form)1a in the normal context of an orthodox view3a. The term, biological distinction1a, is short for the potential of sexual dimorphism, as expressed in humans1a. Roughly, “ortho” means “right” and “dox” means “doctrine”.
0006 Obviously, this content-level is scientifically, reasonably and liberally situated by cognitive psychology and its companion discipline, evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists explain the findings of cognitive psychologists in terms of natural selection and genetics: adaptations and phenotypes.
0007 The social constuctivist approach runs opposition to cognitive (and evolutionary) psychology. The social constructivist claims to situate the orthodox view, with the possibility that biological distinctions are irrelevant. Instead, only the human will is relevant. Gender is a personal choice. Gender is an act of the will.
The resulting situation-level nested form looks like this.
0110 Even weirder, what if the organizational objective2aC of the postmodern academy3aC, arising from the righteousness of radical individualism, marxist worldviews, and big government (il)liberalism1aC, is, as Dr. Saad claims, a self-deceiving parasitic syndrome?
What if the organizational objective2aC triggers susceptible individuals to identify as “oppressed”(2b)2aC because the privileges(2c)2aC of social justice(3c)2aC coincide with what one expects from participating in harmonious social circles?
0111 Wouldn’t that be freaky?
It is like drinking the Flavor-Aid.
0112 These comment bring the arguments in Dr. Gad Saad’s book into a strange revelation.
The reason why Dr. Saad is the target of animosity from colleagues in the postmodern multiversity unites with his chosen topic of expertise, evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology applies lessons about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in to our current Lebenswelt.
In doing so, it raises post-postmodern questions concerning the adaptive natures of human will(1a)2aC, systems(1b)2aC and protection(1c)2aC and their maladaptive expressions in our current Lebenswelt.
Plus, none of these topics can be discussed in the College of Social Construction.
0113 My thanks to Professor Saad for his excellent work.
0114 Our curent Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Cheers for an expanded range of inquiry for evolutionary psychology.
The three masterworks of Razie Mah offer a treasure trove for those interested in human evolution: The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall, and How To Define the Word “Religion”.
These are all available as electronic books. Just search for the author’s name, Razie Mah, along with the title.
0115 A Course on the Human Niche is a series, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, containing the masterwork, a primer, and commentaries, including the following.
Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big
Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of The Mind
Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us?
Comments on Derek Bickerton’s Book (2014) More Than Nature Needs
Any literate adult can conduct a seminar class that reads and discusses these works.
0116 Another series, titled Buttressing the Human Niche, contains comments on articles and books on the topic of human evolution.
Here is a sample.
Comments on David McNeill’s Book (2012) How Language Began
Comments on David Reich’s Book (2018) Who We Are and How We Got Here
Comments on Christ Sinha’s Essay (2018) “Praxis, Symbols and Language”
Comments on Kim Sterelny’s Essay (2011) “From Hominins to Humans”
Comments on John Barrett and Krystalli Amilati’s Essay (2004) “Some Light on the Early Origins of Them All”
Comments on Stella Souvatzi, Adnan Baysal and Emma Baysal’s Essay (2019) “Is there Prehistory?”
These works may be purchased at smashwords and other e-book venues. They explore topics and demonstrate the practice of association and implication. They are ideal for throwing into an established study (or curriculum) on human evolution, in order to demonstrate the realness of triadic relations. Triadic relations are real enough to constitute a niche.
0117 Finally, the Razie Mah’s blog at www.raziemah.com looks at other publications. Each “looking at” blog consists of one to twenty parts. These may be used to spread the word, for enjoyment, discussion and erudition.
For example, the following appears in March 2021
Looking at Daniel Turbon’s Article (2020) “…Human Being in Evolution”
In May 2021
Looking at Chris Sinha’s Essay (2018) “Praxis, Symbol and Language”
0118 Currently, evolutionary psychology is narrowly practiced as an adjunct to cognitive psychology. Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain findings, models and evidence from cognitive psychology in terms of natural selection in the environment of evolutionary adaptation.
Now comes the Course on the Human Niche, Buttressing of the Human Niche, and other productions by Razie Mah,proposing that the ultimate human niche is the potential of triadic relations.
Yes, humans also evolve into very many proximate niches. But, all our proximate niches are bundled together by our ultimate niche. Proximate niches are like the various wooden rods bound together in the ancient Roman artifact called “religio”. This artifact serves as a metaphor for the human’s ultimate niche. Our ultimate niche binds all adaptations into proximate niches together.
0119 Professor Gad Saad’s book takes the reader outside of a narrow and closed practice of evolutionary psychology. However, since Saad does not know the hypothesis of the ultimate human niche, he cannot cross from complaining and demanding action to a wide-open practice of evolutionary psychology. Thus, he cannot fully comprehend what he is encountering in postmodern academics and elsewhere. He is moving towards a realization. It is just around the corner.
A wide-open evolutionary psychology examines our current Lebenswelt through the lens of adaptations accrued in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
That revolution in thought begins with Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche.
0001 Last month, the Razie Mah blog presented the end of Comments on David Graeber and David Wengrow’s Book (2021) “The Dawn of Everything” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues). The blog is titled Looking at Graeber and Wengrow’s Chapter (2021) “The State Has No Origins”.
The question arises, “Does the weird confounded diagram developed in this commentary have relevance to other inquiries covering the human condition in our current Lebenswelt?”
0002 This blog offers an answer, by way of example.
Three years before the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation of Aquarius, Athina Karatzogianni and Andrew Robinson publish an article in the Journal of International Political Theory (2017, Vol. 13(3) 282-295). The British scholars are experts in communication and sociology. Thier article investigates the role of anarchy… er, “anarchy”… in state securitization.
0003 The weird and confounded diagram that appears in the commentary on Graeber and Wengrow’s book looks like this.
The goal of this blog is to briefly review Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article and to demonstrate that a derivation of this figure maps onto the topic.
0004 What is this article about?
The full title is Schizorevolutions versus Microfascisms: The fear of anarchy in state securitisation. Needless to say, the terms are specialized descriptors. But of what?
0005 According to the above figure, academics may confound the state2b with sovereign acts and decrees2bC. The “state”2b is defined. What is defintion? Definition3 is the normal context bringing the actuality of a spoken word2 into relation with the potential of meaning, presence and message1.
The state2b‘ is a term arising from the presence of domination1b‘. But, domination2a must also be defined. The term, “domination”2a, emerges from (and situates) the possibilities inherent in the sole legitimate use of violence (similar to presence)1a’, the administration of information (like meaning)1a and the promotion and guidance of charismatic influence(like message)1a. I call policing, bureaucracy and maintaining reputation, “the three imperatives1a“. The three imperatives1a underlie domination2a.
0006 Here is a picture of the way that Graeber and Wengrow define “state”. This is the path of definition (P).
0007 The way of differentiation is developed in the chapter on presence in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues). Even though the differentiation of an originary, undifferentiated, social world follows the logic of Peirce’s categories, the process is also historic. Since the start of our current Lebenswelt, the societyC, organizationB and individuals in communityA have historically differentiated into three tiers of interscopes. As a result, realization of the two types of religion, corresponding to organizational objects2aC and a relational object2cC, follows the logic of the differentiation of category-based nested forms and occurs in history.
Here is a picture of the three-level interscope for the societyC tier. This is the path of differentiation (Q).
0008 Needless to say, neither Graeber and Wengrow nor Karatzogioanni and Robinson are aware of the the path of differentiation. So, they are not aware that they confound P and Q.
For example, in the introduction, the latter authors suggest that the securitisation discourse (the administration of information, P21a) by the state2b’ arises from the perception of “new threats” (charismatic influence outside of state supervision, P31a) and attempts to fix network flows (through violence, P11a). This also means that the normal context of sovereign power3bC brings the actuality of sovereign acts and decrees2bC into relation with the potential for ‘order’1bC. However, now sovereign power2bC is confounded with definition3b. The state2b is mixed up with sovereign acts and decrees2bC. Plus, ‘domination’1b is entangled with ‘order’1bC.
0009 Here is a picture of how the confounding seems to play out.
0010 Karatzogianni and Robinson immediately go on to say that their argument is based on a distinction between states and networks. Furthermore networks divide into two forms, such as affinity-active and non-affiliating-reactive, as well as between schizoid (non-affiliating active) and paranoic (non-affiliating reactive). Then, they discuss the ramifications in detail.
To me, the distinction between the state2b and its domination2a of organizational objectives2aC of insitutions3aCredefines3b institutions3aC as networks3a. Order1bC melds with efforts to control the content level1b. While “order” sounds legitimate. “Control” does not.
Order1bC establishes peace among instituions3aC working2aC independently based on their own righteousness1aC. Plus, that righteousness1aC does not pay tribute to the perspective level actuality2bC of fear.
Control1b envisions threats emanating from the open space of active desire1aC and aims to moderate these through domination2a (using P1, P2 and P3 of the three imperatives underlying the definition3a of domination2a). Consequently, attempts2b to supervise2b and narrow the space1b of righteousness1aC, sanction2b and outlaw2b objectsorg2aC, and wage war2b on institutions3aC that do not conform to state2b control1b expand into the fabric of everyday life.
0011 The state’s2b acts and decrees2bC are not oriented to protecting civilians or non-state actors. So, the normal context is not sovereignty3bC, but a defining power3b (responsible to a higher loyalty2cC, so to speak). Yet, this defining power3bspeaks the language of sovereignty3bC, just as Graeber and Wengrow do.
0012 But, who is doing the defining here?
Look at the perspective-level actuality2cC.
Fear2cC is not an emotion. Fear2cC is a demiurge, a relational object, an object that brings everyone into relation.
0028 This article appears in the Journal of International Political Theory (2017, vol 13(3), 282-295). So far, my examination describes how the weird confounded diagram developed in the commentary on David Graeber and David Wengrow’s Book (2021) “The Dawn of Everything” is relevant to Karatzogianni and Robinson’s argument. This blog retells the story.
The weird diagram confounds two independent paths of articulation. The path of Graeber and Wengrow is the way of definition (P). After all, they are academics. Academics are devoted to defining their terms. The path of Razie Mah is the way of differentiation (Q). The differentiation of a nested form into the societyC, organizationB and individual in communityA tiers takes place in the chapter on presence in the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”.
Here is a picture of the situation and content levels of definition (P) confounded with the same levels of the societyC tier (Q).
0029 The above diagram does not include the perspectivec level of the societyC tier (Q). Karatzogianni and Robinson open by describing the securitisation state as exploiting and promoting an atmosphere of fear. Fear is the object that brings everyone into relation2cC.
Consequently, this confounding (P and Q) is put into perspective by a demiurge2cC, an entity standing above sovereign power, and this demiurge2cC defines the state2b.
0030 This configuration produces a split in the content level of defined3a institutions2aC.
Some institutions3b’ attempt to work with the state2b. These conforming institutions3b’ bring sanctioned organizational objects2b’ into relation with the potential1b’ of the three imperatives of domination1c’ as well as the institution’s original righteousness1b. This is useful for the state2c’, which relies on conforming institutions3b’ to situate institutions3a’ that (for whatever reason) cannot or will not conform.
Conforming institutions3b’ perform microfascist activities for the state2c’, increasing the possibility of state control1c’through forcing choices, limiting and misleading information, as well as protecting reputations. These activities are built into sanctioned organizational objectives2b’ that presumably emerge from (and situate) the potential of the institution’s original righteousness1b’. According to my reading this article, Karatzogianni and Robinson do not clearly ideate this side of the splitting.
Other institutions are downgraded (often, by state interference) into networks3a’. Nonconforming networks3a’ bring unsactioned organizational objectives2a’ into relation with the potential of ‘unsupervised righteousness’1a’. Conforming institutions3b’ are ofted viewed by the anarchy level as state apparatuses3b’ whose organizational objectives2b’ are compromised by the fact they follow the rules, even when not necessary, lie and cover up1b’.
0031 How do nonconforming networks3a’ respond?
Not as the state2c’ would like them do. The state2c’ now occupies the perspective level of an interscope that expresses the path of definition. Remember, the perspective level typically comes into play on;y when there is a failure on the situation level. In other words, the perspective level is taken for granted, until something goes wrong.
Here is the interscope of securitisation2cC.
0032 Once again, what about the response of noncomforming networks3a’ on the anarchy level?
Unsupervised righteousness1a’ inspires organization objectives2a’ that appear schizophrenic (they are listening to the voices in thier heads instead of the state) or paranoid (they think that the state is the one to fear, rather than the demiurge that defines the state). Consequently, the two actors of importance in Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article belong to the state and the anarchy levels.
0033 So, what is lacking in this article?
Situation-level institutionsb’ end up being drained of their original righteousness1b’ due to their compromise with the defining power3c’. Conforming institutions3b’ lose respectability by enforcing the three imperatives that underlie the word, “domination”1b’. Conforming institutions3b’ lose respectablity by sacrificing their original righteousness1b’ in the process of enforcing the three imperatives1b’. Yet, conforming institutions3b’ maintain respectablility by being the only ones whose organizational objectives2b’ are sanctioned by state decree2c’ and therefore less likely to suffer capricious state action2c’.
0034 It makes me wonder what the word, “respectable”, really means.
The sociological and psychological dynamics of the compliant level are ripe for exploration.
Coloration tells the story.
0035 So much for the political theory aspect of Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article, what about the “international” aspect?
After all, the article appears in the Journal of International Political Theory.
Well, in the introduction and the conclusion, the authors speculate that the security state may be a response to the anarchy generated by… or may be a strategy to control the wealth and innovations produced by… or may aim to wrest control from…
… global capitalism.
Which makes me wonder, “Could global capitalism be a demiurge, just like securitisation?”
If so, then Graeber and Wengrow’s weird confounding diagram is relevant.
And, the prior steps should apply to the following perspective-level nested form.
0036 The rest is left as an exercise for the intrepid inquirer.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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 choice, private 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.
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”.