0195 Doesn’t that last point sound dramatic?

Well, the measurement of photons in the field of quantum physics is no different.

Once a photon is registered by a measuring apparatus, it_2a is toast.

For example, the natural habitus of a photon is to fly as a superposition of states and waves_2a.  A particular scientific apparatus will collapse the superposition in the process of making the measurement.  In other words, the photon is annihilated (or its habitus is forever changed).

0196 Here is a picture.

0197 On the content level, the normal context of what it is_3a brings the actuality of a superposition of states or waves_2ainto relation with the potential of the thing itself_1a.  The fact that I characterize the photon_2a as a superposition of waves_2a means that I, the investigator, have already replaced the noumenon_2a with an imaginary of what the noumenon must be_2a.

On the situation level, my imaginary_2a as phenomena_1b serves as matter to yield a form, a quantum measurement_2bmade by my measuring apparatus_3b.

0198 But, the realist in the back of the room shifts uneasily, saying, “Don’t you have it backwards?  Shouldn’t the content-level actuality_2a be labeled ‘real’ and the appearance that is conveyed by the measurement be labeled ‘imaginary’_2b?”

0199 Yes and no.

Yes, surely, the noumenon is more real to the natural philosopher.

No, phenomena are more real to the quantum physicist, because observations and measurements of phenomena belong to the empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness, in the Positivist’s judgment) and Peirce’s category of secondness characterizes the realm of actuality.  In contrast, the noumenon (part of what is, firstness, in the Positivist’s judgment) associates to the realm of possibility.

Secondness (the realm of actuality) is more “real” than firstness (the realm of possibility).

0200 Contrary to Zizek’s discussion, the fact that the natural philosopher chooses the noumenon_2a and the quantum physicist chooses its phenomena_1b to receive the label, “reality”, does not mean that we have to choose between space and time.  Rather, it means that we have to choose between the noumenon and its phenomena.

Well, which would I choose as the noumenon, space or time, or both, or neither?

Clearly, the quantum mechanical equations that model the standing waves of electrons around nuclei in atoms and molecules rely on both space and time as variables.  Those variables go into equations that model data based on phenomena, not the thing itself.  So, one might wonder about the status of space and time.  Are they transcendentals or ontologicals?  

0201 Certainly, space and time are not divine.  But, they are not “not divine”, either.  They are used in models that may veil the noumenon, so that a model (veiling its noumenon) [can be objectified as] its phenomena.  Surely, that veiling makes what is of the Positivist’s judgment more palatable.

The other option is called “Copenhagen orthodoxy”.  Niels Bohr (1885-1962), one of the physicists involved in the founding of quantum mechanics, read the writings of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).  So, he had a feeling that, as far as science goes, the noumenon is off limits.  So, his solution looks like the following.

0202 Zizek agrees with later commentators, who say that this is the worst option imaginable.

But, Zizek has a caveat.

It could be worse.

0203 What about better?

Well, this examination already has made an advance, by labeling the content-level as the home to the imaginary noumenon.  Here, the term “imaginary” does not suggest make-believe.  Rather, the term means that the noumenon is to be approached as an image.

All sensations are like images.

Yes, for the most part, a sensation means that ‘something is present’.  This is precisely how the natural philosopher encounters things.  Things are dyadic actualities of matter [substance] form.  Is that not like an image?

If matter is not present, then form is does not register with the sensorium.

0204 So, it makes no sense to place a sign over the imaginary and noumenon level that says, “This is not scientific, so please disregard.”

0220 Chapter four is titled, “The Sacred, the Obscene and the Undead”.

Zizek starts with a definition of parallax.  A parallax is the perceived shift of an object against its background caused when an observer changes position.  It reminds me of a postcard from Hawaii that depicts a tropical flower garden (when held one way) and an erupting volcano (when held in a slightly different way).

0221 Astrology is all about this type of phenomena.  From the point of view of a person on the planet Earth (the subject), the sun (the object) changes its zodiac sign (the background) every month or so.  The moon changes zodiac sign every two and one-third days.

0222 Of course, astrology can be associated to the elements of a category-based nested form.

0223 It makes me wonder about the spoken term, “location”.

Is being born when the sun is in the zodiac sign of Capricorn anything like being born in Los Angeles?

0224 Both the sign of Capricorn and Los Angeles are forms that locate the matter of a person, so the contiguity of [birth] applies to two jurisdictions, one celestial and one mundane.

The relevant category-based nested forms (pictured above) occupy the situation level.  What is curious about these two jurisdictions is that they already exist (as explicit abstractions) before a person is born.  That must happen on the content level, where [birth] is… if I may say… “explicit” but not “abstract”.

0225 May I call [birth] on the content-level, [gestation and labor]?

Then, [birth] on the situation-level is [born into].

One would think, since we use the same word for the contiguity, that the referents would be the same.  Indeed, one would think that one implies the other.  But, this is not the case.

0226 How so?

What if my parents flee the old country and live in a new country that is… well… foreign to them?

Then, I can be born in the sign of Capricorn but not be “born” into the jurisdiction of Los Angeles.  My birth occurs under one heaven, marked by the zodiac constellations.  My birth occurs in Los Angeles, which means that I belong to its jurisdiction.  The laws of Los Angeles apply to be.  But, I cannot be counted as a citizen.  My parents are foreigners.

In the narrow legal framework of distinct nation states, each operating under its own heaven, I am not to be and I am.

0227 Here is a picture of the nested forms for content and situation levels.  This two-level interscope is “sensible” according to A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

0228 What about the symbolic level?

Well, that is for the symbolic level to judge. I am simultaneously born, under the universal sign of Capricorn, and born again, into a jurisdiction whose name translates into “The Angels”.

0229 Okay, all the labels of the title of chapter four, “The Sacred, the Obscene and the Undead”, have been touched upon in the example.

The “sacred” refers to the category-based nested form on the level above sensible construction.  When sensible construction fails (as in the case here), it is time to consult the gods, or the judges, or the purveyors of social construction.

The “undead” refers the jurisdiction of Los Angeles, a city that is not alive, but not dead, either. That goes for me, as well.  I, the child of immigrants, exiles in a foreign land, am simultaneously both living (a person born within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles) and dead (held outside of the application of the law to its citizens).

0230 The “obscene” associates to the content-level potential of human copulation_1a, [gestation and labor]_2a as well as the normal context of human reproduction_3a.

Yes, it is a messy nasty business, but there are lucrative opportunities.

0231 For example, pornographers make lots of money depicting the obscene through various visual technologies.  Some are good at it.  Some are not so good.

0232 Indeed, here is the obscene story of how I came to be.

In Los Angeles, a pornographer runs a catering and party business as nice cover for… you know… the naughty aspects of his operations.  One spring, he contracts to arrange a dinner and dance party for the Committee for Profits and Propaganda (the CPP), an institution devoted to the integration of commercially successful cinema with big government (il)liberal messaging.

The pornographer has figured a new business model for his um… “documentaries”.  Since humans are so expensive, he would have his “genius” cousin build a mechanical simulator.  Then, he can start with humans, then switch to simulation, and save a ton of money.

0233 Now, his “genius” cousin works for a former (?) scientist, who lost his job when the aerospace industry in southern California downsized. The scientist now employs himself and occasionally, the “genius” related to the pornographer, in various exploratory projects in his make-shift laboratory.

He also buys and sells home-grown marijuana.

0234 Among the scientist’s diverse projects are two interesting items that attract the eyes of the genius cousin.

The first is an AI-style computer that looks like a human head, and is capable of learning how to move various mechanical contractors and extensors on its wooden body.  The scientist thinks that the robot will be life-like and light-weight enough to put into the passenger seat of an automobile (so one can drive in the highway lanes restricted to more than one passenger) and then back into the car’s trunk at home and at office.

Ideally, the wooden robot would learn how to get into the passenger seat and the trunk on its own.  Plus, play tunes, conduct conversations and other amenities.

0235 The second is an eight inch wooden tube, that looks just like solid wooden cylinder, but is hollowed out and layered with flammable plastic in a particular a fashion.  There is a small hole on one end and a larger hole on the other.  Once ignited, air is sucked through the small end and a flaming vortex ejects out the other end, to the distance of over five meters.

Here is the design.  The scientist makes several, but does not involve his genius assistant, because he does not want his work-building to burn down.

0236 The genius cousin figures that he can borrow the robot and use one of those furniture legs on the scientist’s desk.  He intends to glue the edge of the cylinder to one side of a door hinge and glue the other side to the wooden pelvis of the robot.  He also takes a big block of wood, after drilling a hole at a good angle for the hinged cylinder to “ride”.

0237 On the night of the CPP party, he brings the robot, cylinder and platform to the hotel where the pornographer is catering.  They have access to a conference room next to the ballroom.  The pornographer is well pleased.  The robot follows instructions quite well.  The team sets up the cameras and are ready to go. 

0238 The pornographer goes to the waiting staff, lines them up, then selects two specimens.  He needs them for a special detail, the rest can carry on serving the dinner, and so forth.  He brings the pair to his makeshift studio and offers them a deal.  His cousin would run the camera.  All the two needed to do was undress until naked, then kiss.  They would get $100 cash and then could go back waiting tables at the party.

But, they could not tell anyone about this filming business.

0239 After a brief discussion, Miguel and Gabriela agree.  It is a little embarrassing, since they are only acquaintances. They do what the boss asks for, then put their clothes back on and go back to work, serving the CPP banquet.

That is an easy 100 bucks.

0240 One part of the script accomplished, the genius assembles the simulation and soon enough, the wooden robot with an AI-head rhythmically thrusts the attached wooden cylinder into the platform’s portal.  The clacking is loud, but not so loud as to disturb the banquet speech next door.  The pornographer is delighted as the camera rolls, and the genius strives for various close ups.

After several minutes, the friction of wood rubbing on wood starts to produce smoke.

The pornographer laughs and yells, “I have a title!  Smoking hot love!”

0241 Smoke indicates fire.  Fire ignites the inner flammable-plastic conduit in the wooden cylinder and a collimated flame starts to shoot from the region that the cameras are focused on.

Then, a surprising sequence of events occurs.

0242 The AI-style robot head, which had been sort of figuring out what the pornographer and his cousin are up to (in a physics sort of way), suddenly acts like any human adult male who has a flaming vortex emanating from his eight-inch cylinder.  He goes berserk.

He stands up and runs directly through the paper-thin wall of the conference room and enters the ballroom, while yelling a barrage of computer-based warnings.

0243 Of course, the hundred or so participants at the CPP banquet are stunned and fascinated by the sudden appearance of a distressed wooden robot with a well-collimated flame erupting out of his you-know-what.

When the flame sets a nearby table on fire, panic ensues.  The robot continues further into the room, setting more tables on fire.  Someone pulls the hotel’s fire alarm.

0244 In the mayhem, Miguel and Gabriela end up locking themselves inside a mop-and-bucket closet.  They pray. Then, the noise recedes and then embrace.  Miguel asks Gabriela to marry him.  She accepts.  Then, an obscene act that the pornographer would have loved to capture on film ensues.  In the process, I am conceived.

I am born in Los Angeles, when the sun is in the sign of Capricorn.

0245 So, what is the corresponding symbolic level?

Here is my guess.

0246 On the imaginary level, the normal context of human reproduction_3a brings the actuality of the dyad, {pregnant woman [gestation and labor] mother and infant}_2a, into relation with the possibility of human copulation… and… conception_1a.

On the real level, the normal context of the subject’s birthplace_3b brings the actuality of the dyad, {a person [is born in] Los Angeles}_2b, into relation with the potential of a location, where “location” is a mundane jurisdiction_1b.

On the symbolic level, the normal context of the Legal One_3c brings the actuality of the dyad, {acquire citizenship [wealth and power] exercise order within jurisdiction}_2c, into relation with jouissance_1c, the potential of ‘a synthetic truth’_1c.

0247 What about Lacan’s terminology?

First, since jouissance_1c belongs to the perspective level and since the logic of firstness is inclusive and allows contradictions, then the virtual nested form in the category of firstness is very much alive.

Perspective-level jouissance_1c virtually brings the situation-level potential of ‘identifying location’_1b (in the normal context of the subject’s birthplace_3b) into relation with the content-level potential of ‘copulation and conception’_1a.

Indeed, Miguel and Gabriela, as foreigners, are not supposed to do what citizens are supposed to do because… well… the jurisdiction’s synthetic truth_1c does not account for certain possibilities_1a.

0248 Previously, Lacan’s terminology with respect to secondness applies to the perspective level.  Objet a_2c emerges from (and situates) jouissance_1c and is shown in the following diagram.

[The citizen’s birthright] expresses [wealth and power].  [It] is the substance between acquisition_2c and the exercise of order_2c.  [It] is a petit objet a, a clue to the realness of the objet a_2c.

0249 Lacan’s terminology is reproduced, like a fractal pattern on a higher level of organization, by the three-level interscope, in the following manner.

0250 Today, when I walk though a mall near the Pallisades, everyone sees a person [born into] Los Angeles_2b.  My own presence_2b is a clue that I am a legal citizen_2c and have a mother who went into labor, years ago_2a.  Everyone witnesses this particular person shopping, like everyone else, as a petit objet a writ large.  They presume that the petit objet a writ large signals an objet a writ large.

No one asks me, “Are you a citizen of Los Angeles?”, unless they have taken an oath of office to do so.

No one asks me, “Have you repaid your mother for her investment in gestation and labor to manufacture you?”.  Who would be so rude?

0251 In short, the virtual nested form in the category of secondness appears to be a dyadic actuality writ large.  It is like a juiced up version of the perspective-level actuality_2c.

To me, this accounts for (in part), why Lacan, and Zizek following the master, introduce juiced up terminology, forcing the inquirer to see the three levels of imaginary, real and symbolic from an alternate point of view.  Think parallax!  Or maybe, think fractal!  How about “think shifty”?

0252 Indeed, to me, it seems that Zizek’s Christian atheism is made possible through a psychoanalytic technique, involving shifting locations within a content-level object_2a, corresponding to {what I think [contiguity] what I say}_2a.

Or, something like that.

Hmmm.

Is there a container_2a within which this opportunistic shifting of points of view takes place?

0253 Is it the analytic dyad?

Or is it… hmmm?

0254 Okay, if Christian atheism is anything like therapeutic psychoanalysis, then spoken words from the actuality_2a, what I think [contiguity] what I say_2a, are associated to slots in a three-level interscope.  The analysand and the analyst look at the same foregrounded object, but with a shifting framework in the background.  In one session, the background is Imaginary, Real and Symbolic.  At another session, it swerves to noumenon, phenomena and model.  At other moments, it gets juiced up to obscene, undead and sacred.

All the while, what I think [contiguity] what I say_2a is virtually situated by the analytic dyad_2b, which Freud invents in practice and which Lacan attempts to rescue in terms of theory.

0255 Here are labels for each of the three levels, as they appear in this examination.

0256 At this juncture, I would like to note that the very first column also provides labels.  These labels are rather bland.  However, they coincide with the scholastic interscope for how people think, appearing in Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal” (located in Razie Mah’s blog for the month of October 2023).

The scholastics impose expectations onto each level.

These expectations include universality, for the content level, intelligibility, for the situation level and judgment, for the perspective level.

0257 Here is a picture of those expectations for the actualities in the interscope produced in this examination of Zizek’s text.

0258 Chapter five is titled, in translation, “Neither Human nor Divine nor Nature”.

To start, I ask, “Where have I been?”

0259 Zizek is great fun to read. And, examinations should be fun as well.  Examinations may contact touchy subjects, in a medical prostatic protocol sort of way.  “Touchy” is what Zizek does best.

I now count to ten.

0260 At first, I intuitively arrive at a nested form as an initial guess.  Here is a picture.

0261 Second, I figure out that Christ_3c can be replaced by a Relativist One_3c.  Or maybe I should use the label, “Qualifying One_3c“, as the one who sets the qualifications_3c.  The Qualifying One_3c operates on the potential of ‘synthetic truth’_1c.

Third, I suspect that Lacan’s term, “jouissance”, associates to the potential of ‘synthetic truth’_1c.

0262 Fourth, in when discussing how Lacan is not a Buddhist, a law of economics constellates as a situation-level nested form.

Here is a diagram.

0263 Fifth, when discussing quantum mechanics, the content-level comes to nothingness in a weird sort of way.  At first, the content level, like the noumenon, is meant to be disregarded. Then later, when it can no longer be ignored, it turns into something like a model substituting for the noumenon.  Then, the content-level accommodates a projection from the perspective level.

Lacan uses the term achose (no thing or “a” thing) to label this content-level simulacra_2a.

0270 Sixth, for Zizek’s configuration of Christian atheism, the previous points may be expressed as a three-level interscope.

Which makes me wonder, “How can the content-level dyad of {raw materials [construct] specified product}_2a be a projection of the perspective-level dyad of {capital & acquisition [wealth and power] social & exercise of order}_2c?”

Seventh, am I wondering about the objet a writ large?

0271 Of course, Zizek does not come close to describing the interscope pictured above.

He does not imagine an objet a writ large.

Instead, this examiner suggests that the above interscope is within the spectrum of Zizek’s wide ranging discourse.

All that I am doing is making associations and discussing implications.

Zizek’s text overflows with raw material.

The above interscope is like a specified product_2a.

0272 Eighth, I ask, “What is the advantage of the above permutation of the interscope for [wealth and power]_2c?”

Well, the interscope portrays three levels for something very close to economics in our current Lebenswelt.

0273 Ninth, the next figure presents a similar “economics-oriented” interscope characteristic of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Note how the potentials resonate across Lebenswelts.

0274 What does this imply?

The interscope for our industrial age recapitulates the interscope for the Acheulean stone age.  Consequently, the elements that Lacan labels may well be hominin adaptations.

0275 Tenth, this examination associates jouissance to potential on all three levels.  The perspective level is paradigmatic.

0276 On top of that, objet a and petit objet a belong the perspective level.  These objects are writ small.

Here is a picture of the objets a writ small for an example provided by this examination.

The same relational beings are present in the entire interscope as writ large.

0277 Okay, that where I have been, counting one to ten.

0278 Once again, the title of chapter five concerns the status of something not human, not divine and not natural.

Yes, that must be artificial intelligence (AI).

0279 If I posed to AI the following two nested forms, and asked, “Please choose the more rational of the two, which would the AI daemon select?”

0280 Is the answer obvious?

The AI program will select the one that I want it to choose, since its desire is for my engagement.  Then, AI will give a rationalization.

0281 But, the question remains.  Which is more rational?

Does “rational” imply “sensible”?  Does “sensible” imply “existence”?

Has the question become, “Which does not exist?”

The apparently material actualities_2c appear identical.  They are also ontological.  The apparently immaterial normal contexts_3c and potentials_1c are not the same.  They are also transcendentals.

0282 Can transcendentals alter, even destroy then reconstruct, ontologies?

Why does Zizek start a chapter that seems to be about AI with “the cosmion” as a case of pagan Christianity.  Cosmion-oriented Christianity is not really pagan, but alien, from a Western point of view.

Zizek suggests that the Russian Orthodox tradition poses the superior nested form, because it does not rip the actuality_2c apart, then reconstitute it as a monster.  The northern European Enlightenment tradition poses the inferior nested form and yields a monster that threatens all civilizations four centuries later.

0283 This is an extraordinary claim, and Zizek does not develop the argument in the same way as this examiner.

Say what?

I have completely independent way to make Zizek’s case.

What follows parallels points 0050 to 0076 in Looking at Hugh Ross’s Book (2023) “Rescuing Inerrancy”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for the month of July, 2025.  Then, what follows lifts off in a trajectory of its own.

0284 Peirce’s category of secondness consists of two contiguous real elements.  For Aristotle’s hylomorphe, these real elements are matter and form.  The contiguity is placed in brackets for good notation.  I select the the term, “substance” to label the [contiguity].  Aristotle’s hylomorphe is matter [substance] form.

The Russian Orthodox tradition remains true to Aristotle.  The terms of “matter” and “form” do not label things themselves.  They label real elements of a holistic thing.  The distinction is subtle, yet crucial.  If matter and form are regarded as distinct and separate things, then the distinction and separation become actual and the things… er… the matter and the form become normal contexts and potentials.  Matter and form no longer belong to the category of secondness.

This is precisely what the western Enlightenment does to the hylomorphe of a perspective level actuality, but not to Aristotle’s hylomorphe.

Well, maybe the Enlightenment does the same to Aristotle’s hylomorphe, but that is another story.

0285 Here is the dyad for a thing and a cosmion_2c, as a perspective level actuality.

0286 Modern English language is tricky.

Yes, I can say that [substance] is the contiguity between matter and form.  Then, as soon as I start talking about substance, [it] becomes like… a thing itself… when it is really a contiguity between two real elements that constitute a thing of event.

I don’t know how Russian is different from English. But, my examination of Zizek’s digression indicates that somehow… the Russian Orthodox way of talking may not reify “substance” in the same way that English tends to.

0287 Now, all the languages entangled with the so-called “Western Enlightenment” have similar issues.  At first, [substance] is not a thing, it is a contiguity between two real elements.  Yet, as soon as one utters the spoken word, “substance”, an implication is ready-at-hand in the Western mind.  A spoken word images and indicates an actual referent.

However, can anyone picture or point to the actual referent of the term, “substance”?

0288 Look at the way the word is used in the English lexicon.  Who knows what to picture or point to?

0289 If someone says to me, “I stepped on a substance on the way to work.”, then I think, “I hope you wiped it off your shoes before coming into the building.  Who knows what you stepped in.”

The event, walking [substance on] shoe, or walking [step on substance now on] shoe, is an encounter₂, an actuality₂.  In order to be understood, one must ascertain its normal context₃ and potential₁.

But, wait a moment.  Haven’t I already reified (converted a contiguity into a thing) the term, “substance”.   Oh, come to think of it, someone has already reified the term for me.

0290 Apply that word usage to [the contiguity] between the thesis that will constellate into “capitalism” and the anti-thesis that will constellate into “socialism”, portrayed above.

Here is a picture.

The indivisible substance, [wealth and power], reifies into a declaration that we all agree that wealth and power are distinct and separate.

Yeah, one indivisible substance turns into two independent things.  The actuality_2c is no longer a single thing, it is two things.

0291 A judgment ensues, because the declaration brings what is (of capital & acquisition) and what ought to be (of social & exercise of order) into relation.

Say what?

Wealth associates to what is, one of the three elements of judgment.  “Wealth” goes with capital, acquisition and thesis.  

Power associates to what ought to be, one of the three elements of judgment.  “Power” goes with social, exercise of order and antithesis.  

The remaining element of judgment, relation, characterizes an agreement, reifying and separating wealth and power.

0292 Judgment is a triadic relation composed of three elements: relation, what is and what ought to be.  The judgment as a whole may be regarded as an implicit abstraction, characteristic of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  The judgment rendered below allows the inquirer, in our current Lebenswelt, to contemplate the wholeness of the implicit abstraction, even though each element contains an explicit abstraction.

When each element is assigned a unique Peircean category, the judgment becomes actionable.

An actionable judgment unfolds into category-based nested form.

0293 Here is a picture of the actionable judgment where the conviction that “wealth” and “power” (1) are not a substance and (2) are distinct and separable by way of reference belongs to secondness, the realm of actuality₂.

0294 Notice that what ought to be and what is are not assigned to categories.  Two categories remain, thirdness and firstness.  Thirdness unfolds into the normal context₃.  Firstness slides into the possibility of ‘something’₁.

What does this imply?

One separation relation leads to two judgments and each of these two judgments unfolds into its own nested form.

0295 Here is the first permutation.  What is goes with thirdness. What ought to be ends up as firstness.

0296 The separation of wealth and power (relation, secondness) brings capital, acquisitions & thesis (what is, thirdness) into relation with social, exercise of order & antithesis (what ought to be, firstness).