Where Did "We" Go?

“WHERE DID ‘WE’ GO?”

Addressing Tom Friedman’s grammatical-metaphysical question.

Part I.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1

Friedman here compares loss of ‘legitimacy” in Israel, when its Prime Minister Rabin was shot by a West Bank Jewish fanatic for carrying out the Oslo land-for-peace agreement, with the “poisonous political environment America and Barak Obama face today. We’ve lost “we”-ness. The remorseless attitude Rabin’s shooter maintained decisively ruptured the grammatical fabric of “being an Israeli.” He hates to write about it, but having seen that, he doesn’t want to, but is, seeing it here. But there are several things wrong with this comparison.



First, Friedman’s use of ‘legitimacy’ here reflects a textualist metaphysics, as if command power flowed from the machinery of an authorizing process
 to loss of “command power” (cf. J. Atlas), disruption of inner archetypal bond between president (as fetal hero) and people (as “we” siblings in the womb-surround).

The poisoned atmosphere (AIR  North pole) Friedman notes was evident on the floor of the House 10.29 (Tuesday) when Rep. Greyson, (D. Fla.), equated Republican Health Care plan with “Don’t Get Sick, or Die Quick”. This prompted calls for him to apologize or be disciplined (“not the kind of behavior permitted on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives”), but he appeared on Rachael Maddow Wed. p.m. decidedly unrepentant and ready to carry on. If both were in the same room, one would have to back down or go down. It’s that bad.

What Poisons The Atmosphere Here ? (Q.: Are Vaccinators Human? – or “something”)

-to venomously dismiss anti-vaccine arguments out of hand, accompanied by misrepresentation, smears, insults,-- to the point of demonizing the mentality itself – is projection-reversal group ego defense of the vaccinators. (“Just get your damned shot..” one Youtube health care spokeswoman snarled.)

- - This metaphorically poisons (for the metaphysics, see below), because the addressee cannot rightly reply to any point, without confronting assumptions proceeding about themselves which would effectively negate what is said in advance as worthy only of morons, idiots or other defectives. (The metaphor turns metaphysical as the excoriations lead to injections.)

-Meanwhile, the vaccinators insisting that ‘science’ has proven vaccination ‘works’, usually offering small pox and polio as outstanding examples of scourges thankfully reduced now. But critical examination shows these are arguably not from vaccinations, and these may actually be spawning re-combinant side effects, causing auti-immune related disorders to proliferate. As with these, since mass inoculations with live virus particles began in the mid-20th century: chronic fatgue immune dysfunction, fibromyalgia, lupus, MS. ALS, type-one (auto-immune) diabetes, Guillain-Barre, Crohn’s disease, Steve Johnson’s syndrome, Bell’s palsy (from Dr. Len Horowitz). “Science” does not know that the rise of these, along with AIDS, Ebola, Marburg and other deadly viruses, is not perhaps traceable to genetic mutations arising from vaccine contamination. It is doubtful this could be known, in principle, as the scale of molecular bio-chemical interactions involved falls below possible observation (e.g., a random electron jumps orbit, disrupts a DNA code).


Len Horowitz shows that the broad swath through Africa where the small pox vaccine is alleged to have been be so successful in eliminating that disease, exactly overlaps the path through the continent followed by AIDS 20 years later.

The “something” that comes in here is a metaphysical/functional reversal. The vaccinator’s conscious intent is ‘protecting against disease’, and this is technologically effected by artificial stimulation of the auto-immune system. Vaccines administer a ‘pre-emptive’ attack on a hypothetical ‘invader’ of the blood stream, as a line of defense.

This way of thinking repeats at the level of neuro-cellular blood manipulation, by vaccines, the same argument template as initiating pre-emptive, ‘sting’ attacks on ‘domestic terrorists’. Both involve taking pre-emptive, systemic irreversible intrusive action against enemies postulated as ideas. This amounts to them attacking something in themselves projected into, and reversed, in/by the Other: attacking The Other as the Dark (Collectively unconscious) side of themselves. A project impossible to complete as long as the Dark side remains split off from consciousness. But the functional thinking of the vaccinators “squares”, and insures, that The Dark Side is forever split off, at least as far as a preemptive wall of artificially induced can make it. The conjunction of “protecting” by “attacking with, in order to arouse defenses” guarantees reproduction of as much ‘splitting’ is needed to manipulate the population.

.
APPROACH of The Black Sun (“The Return of Nibiru”)

AMERICA ON THE BRINK
-poised to transit: From neurotic perseveration… To full-fledge psychosis

in the mentality that sustains historical group-process.


Chief example: Use of LEFT – RIGHT (liberal – conservative; Republican – Democrat) as political rhetoric alignment. These do not apply to present issues: mandated vaccinations for health workers; parentage and birth certificate of Barack Obama; national security


Markers of the psychotic turn:
-open, unregretted viuolence (acting on irresistable impulses)
-40,000 troops sent to Afghanistan; fake polls on Iran nukes (BP&SB)
-state mandated vaccine … tips the hand to fascist/communist type authority, vs the self-determined will of the people.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/10/01/segments/141828
Brian Lehrer
Vacillating on Vaccination Major Interlude
Thursday, October 01, 2009
• Comments [42]
Orly Avitzur, M.D., medical adviser to Consumer Reports, talks about the magazine finding that many Americans are unsure about getting the swine flu vaccine.

Creepiest, most blood-chilling radio segment I’ve ever heard. 1. Sound of her voice: little girl snake-brain tweet. 2. Lehrer’s dancing genocidalism – cutesy cut-off/control of dissenting pov. 3. Interaction (union*) of the two: double (~S/S*)^. 4. As content of consciousness: snakebrain anima curled around arrested development animus.

****
Major Interlude
Major Interlude
*****

The Ideal Language Method of Philosophy

Wherein talk* about a language ideal for given purposes, such as statement of fact (fact-stating), is used as a proxy for, to reconstruct, assertions of a metaphysical sort – what reality is ultimately like – as assertions about requirements for a language (L*) ideal for the purpose, such as statements of fact per se.

Analogous*: “In an alternate, ideal world….”, such and such would be the case. “In a language designed explicitly to state facts, truly or falsely,.." this and that would be presupposed.

The reason an ideally reconstructed L* for fact stating discourse is necessary

The grammar of unreconstructed discourse permits simple logical errors to be made, illustrated by fallacies. “The apostles were 12; Peter and Paul were apostles; therefore Peter and Paul were 12” is a fallacy of transferring the predicate of a class taken inclusively, to a predicate of members of a class taken distributively. The distinction, being formal, i.e., pertaining to predication as such, requires formal, token-specific recognition in order to avoid fallacy (inferring false conclusions from true premises). Thus, the Greek epsilon is conventionally used for class membership (‘x e a” = df. “x is a member of the class a). The sign “->” is used here for the ‘horseshoe’ (U turned on its left side) for class inclusion (“a -> b” =df. “class a included in class b”). The formal link between class logic and predicate logic is: a -> b  (x)(Ax -> Bx) Read: “a is included in b if and only if, for entity x, if x is A, then x is B”, where A and B are predicates defining the classes a and b respectively. (“x e a” =df. “x is A”).

Roughly, the metaphysical implication is that predicates of classes, including numbers (signs of which can be defined by assuming classes, as Cantor did, and abstractive definition, developed by Russell), can be defined in terms of predicates of individuals. General objects, such as ‘classes’, are removed from the category of undefined, token-marked primitive discourse about reconstructed (‘ideal’) representative discourse. No special terms are required for them, as a primitive category, in order to complete the account of formal truth in simplest (primitive) terms. And, since number signs can be defined through class signs (as classes of classes)

In olden metaphysical terms, “there are no classes, as such’; statements about classes can be theoretically re-written, mutatis mutandis as statements predicating attributes of individuals, salva veritate . This is a reconstruction of (one strand of) classical Platonism”, hypothesizing the existence of general objects requiring higher-level formal token-type recognition in a language adequate to reality given IN language. This was one way Plato’s Theory of Forms remained in ideal language philosophy: token-markers for general objects, such as classes (sets, relations), hypothesized as primitive (undefined).

The issue was: does the ideal language contain undefined descriptive constants, F’A, of higher individual type level, when the x in “Ax” is ‘level one (1)’? Assuming the principle of acquaintance*, tokens of type level 1, xi, are qualitative singularities concretely exemplified in experience, communicated by signs, S*. The predicates of xi are the names of qualities perceived by sense-perception; thus, if “A” stands for the quality of blue color, ‘x is A’, called a function, is said to be ‘satisfied’ by any designator substituted for ‘x’ for which “is blue” is true. This substitution of “function”, taken from arithmetic, is responsible for confusing ideal language philosophy. It goes with Quine’s “open sentence”, as if “the logical point of view” were self-explanatory, but misleadingly designed from the outset. This is where resolution of ambiguity by invoking text-vs- token in communication comes in; further pursuit of this here, however, would lead too far afield.

It is clear on the face of it that several formal hierarchies of sign-uses interlace common discourse. Each of the 5 senses gets its distinct quality name.

*****


Metaphysical discourse (Ex. “time does not exist”) is reconstructed as statements about the syntax and interpretation of its highest level categories of representation (Ex. “the ideal language L contains no undefined descriptive constants referring to relations before-after-simultaneous”).

Criteria of adequacy of S* as ideal L* : consistency (no contradictions; if S*, then ~~S*: reconstructs “Oneness of the universe”); thorough-going relatedness (all S* stand in systematic relation; universality of the laws of causation); completeness (everything it is possible to experience can be articulated in S*). The theory of logical types is required to satisfy the condition of consistency. Unless predications over totalites are stratified, according to token types presupposed by predicates A, B, there can be no formal guarantee than what is deduced from Ax ->will not contradict what is deduced from Bx-> when a e b.

S*1 All red areas on the board are square (x)(Rx -> Sx)
S*2 Some red areas are wet. (Ex)(Rx . Wx)
S*3 No square areas on the board are wet. (x)(Sx -> ~Wx)

Instantiating S*2 for an individual, a -> Ra. Wa (“a is red and a is wet”)
Substituting a in S*1, with Ra entails Sa;
Substituting a in S*3, with Sa entails ~Wa.
Wa , ~Wa (“a is wet and not wet”)

The contradiction implicit in the conjunction of S*1-3 is drawn out and made explicit by the otherwise purely redundant and pointless formal apparatus. It’s purpose, and raison de etre, is to do just that: frame the logical components in scattered discourse in order to exhibit connections and inconsistencies. Clearly, if this is not done, and pursuit of knowledge continues apace on the big checkerboard, contradictions implicit in different assumptions made by disparate enquirers with come to exist and into conflict. Therefore it is adaptive, if nothing else, to elaborate a formal logical apparatus. However, from the time of Plato’s Timaeus, and before -- whatever lay behind the myths it recounts as already olden – it has been almost universally held that there was something more at stake, even metaphysically speaking (as would have to be the case, if it were true at all), in coming to logic (or Logos, Word; but these were anticipatory tokens, losing symbolic


The Two Grammars: philosophical versus ordinary language

Russell’s Theory of logical types was constructed to avoid the occurrence of a-logical, improperly formed entrees in valid deductive argument forms. As punctuation is to written sentences, so ‘if-then’, ‘either-or’, and ‘therefore’’s are to verbal logical content. Rules of verbal use, embodied in ordinary language grammar, are notoriously so loose, vague, polymorphously perverse that, without stipulation of an aim, or intent, of use to be made in translating from spoken to written discourse, a mere assemblage of words as sound inscriptions cannot be rationally assumed to have magically arranged themselves in logical-mathematical propositions by an unseen grammarian.

The details of the theory of logical types prohibits the construction “all textual representation is ambiguous” from expressing a proposition. Though the form of words is grammatical, they are a-logical. Not false; neither true-nor-false; without logical sense, ‘senseless’, taken strictly. As Kant had already pointed out with his famous dictum “existence is not a predicate”, a categorical distinction must be drawn between grammar of ordinary, spoken language (which can emphasize “IS!”, predicatively), and philosophical, or logically adequate grammar. A logically adequate grammar must be immune from corruption of discourse in any steps of a deductive argument chain that would interrupting the transfer of truth of premises to conclusion. If, to this notion of the philosophical grammar of a non-corrupt logical language for what exists, is appended the single simple rule of interpretation called by Gustav Bergman “The principle of acquaintance PA”, following Russell: the lowest level predicates of conscious content, individuals of type 1 (of a logically adequate language) range over momentary quality-quantity configurations, or sense data. This reconstructs the empiricist, phenomenal position of modern metaphysics, since John Locke grammatized the causal theory of perception in the emerging post-Aristotelian atomic-molecular understanding of matter. Logical grammar interpreted by the PA is the simplest, most coherent and systematic framework of discussing reality. (Logical empiricism).

The particular form of sign-use ordinary grammar permits, but logical discourse must screen out, are predicates (functions, F) whose arguments x (as in “F’x” for “x is F”) is allowed to include “F”, itself (F’F). Such is the case, for instance, for “predicate”. One can say “color” is a predicate of colors, “word” a predicate of words; can one say “predicate” as applied to attributed words, is a predicate? – a predicate of itself? If so, a logical distinction will divide predicates that are, from predicates that are not, predicates of themselves, from which Russell’s paradox follows: let Normal” be “the predicate of all predicates not predicates of themselves”; then Normal is Normal if and only if Normal is Not Normal. (The predicate of all predicates is not predicable of itself – is normal – if and only if it is not predicable of itself – not normal.) The problem leading to this, Russell diagnosed, began with the notion that “predicate” was a predicate, though undoubtedly an identifiable grammatical constituent of every sentence.

Wiki Waky Woo

WIKI WAKY WOO

Psychosemiotics and Kant’s Moral Argument for the Existence of God


The Wikipedia entry under Suns In Alchemy is excellent. The title is a token spoof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suns_in_alchemy

“The two suns in the hermetic tradition

There is a persistent belief in alchemical and hermetic tradition in the existence of two suns: a hidden one of pure "philosophical gold," consisting of the essential Fire conjoined with aether, and the apparent one of profane "material gold." “

This refers to the distinction between the upper vs. lower triads of S*, in the 7 stage hierarchical schema of token types.
Upper: <= S*7 theological; S*6 philosophucal; S*5 exiztential
Lower: => S*1 bio-neuropsychic; S*2 phenomenal; S*3 physical embodiment.

S*4, in the hierarchy of token types, is moral discourse, presupposing S*3 (‘my body’) as a lower totality; completed through time with karma, by S*5 predicates (‘What I did’). S*4 is the language of the moral agent, an autonomous, distinct “world” persons occupy (is ‘contained in’).

Moral agency is essential to the concept of what a “person:” is (cf. Rom Harre.) This “world” spans the given totality of body movement, voluntary – under will – and involuntary – by habit/instinct, by presuming to bring the inner acts of will under judgment. “Ought” imples “can” (Hume); therefore, the metaphysical audacity of moral judgment, pursued by reason as a possibility (Kant), leads to completion of the requirement of living under moral constraint – its law, or grammar -- solely under the condition that its content issues from a good will, not externally determined. Kant’s concept of the good will, taken with Aristotle’s definition of the hightest good as that which is chosen-for-itself, and lower goods chosen for the sake of it, leads to the “moral argument for the existence of God”: to predicate on the exiztential center of the lower triad, S*5, connects it through inner desire for its own completion, to S*7, the completing totality, by means of S*6.

“Philosophical gold” is the ancient alchemical token of a higher, more inclusive center of the rational “I”, contained in Tokenspace (content of consciousness under “I” of “I think”), contained in the “world” exterior-to-3D bodyspace – the cosmic totality. The connection of the Rational Ego (S*5, as the solipsistic, narcissistic “world” of my inner personal being, for myself) to that existeng external totality, is to the Sun as Reason to consciousness via (<=) the good will. The philosophical gold attained bythe work of alchemical transformation of the psyche is the Sun in the sky as known to reason: the Rational Sun, drawn in TokenSpace on chartes, cartesian coordinates, scales, is the model of the visible sun. This is the ruler of world S*3, going over to the moon as light in the visible sky.

These two suns illustrate the Hermetic dyad: “Everything is 2”. And: “THE CONTENTION”: is between the One and the Two; the One wants to fly away, but is held in the dyad below, one side tending to slavery , the other to freedom.

The "dark, consuming fire" of the material sun leads to its being called the "Dark" or "Black Sun." According to the Book of the Holy Trinity, after Adam's fall, tainted by Original Sin, man is made "from the black sun's fire."

This sets the stage for alchemical transformation by purification -- starting from the materia prima , by the work releasing the inner fire, to conjoin with the aether. “The black sun’s fire” is what “man” (the Archetype) is made to become free of. There is a very, very fine line between Jungian understanding of the uroboros, inclusing morality as One world of token types among the 7, and the polymorphous perversity of S*3 –S*1 lower “moon” triad, untransformed by the Work.

It's All Russell's Fault !

IT WAS ALL RUSSELL’S FAULT

The sheer creative intellectual power of Bertrand Russell’s analysis of the word-sign “the” determined the direction followed by scientific philosophical thought after 1905 (the year “On Denoting” appeared in Mind).
His analysis translated the logic of sentences in which “the” plays the grammatical role of denotation, as part of a phrase that referred to one thing, but lacked an object. His forever memorable paradigm “the present kind of France is bald” is reread by every graduate student in philosophy. As a bloodline Lord Son of an Admiral in Her Royal Majesty’s The Queen’s Navy, and dominant European mathematical logician, French intellectuals and their future heads of State could only grimace and endure the rib. The anti-Greeks got similar sight gags about Socrates’ ugly pug nose into the literature.


Continental European philosophical thought, with the exception of Rudolf Carnap and the logical positivists, continued the more subjective, existential-phenomenal strand of classical philosophy. This followed use of unreconstructed language tokens, not yielding to the logical syntax of formal languages officially including only “udc”– a category of undefined descriptive constants in the formally reconstructed rule-determined system – as names.

Russellian “ideal language” analysis transposes the one-one relation of name to thing named required for true-or-false discourse, to a given set of stylistic signs set up as ‘substitute values for variables,” e.g., as a,b,c… for x in “Fx”, the standard logical form of subject-predicate sentences used to assert “x is F”. But denotation, or reference – the psychosemiotic function these words indicate – is first and foremost, metaphysically, and act of conscious sign use. The one-one relation is the universal form of each instance, organizing its content for inferential cognitive (textual) connection. This connection is given by assigning the named thing a predicate; unless this thing named is uniquely determined, no predicate assignment is determined and the sentence lacks truth or falsehood. Hence the requirement of one-name one-thing, at the lowest level of resolution of a logically organized S* matrix (a “science”).

The flip side of this seemingly straightforward logical procedure, taking ideal languages constructed on the basis of such as determining a total field of rational reference (content of consciousness under sign use), is that the tokens of use in actual contexts are not produced under logical, but rather causal, constraints, and interest in rational coherence in dropping names into text is not a top priority determinant. One name-one thing is fine as hypothetical starting point for an ideal language of science; and it is the key to digitalization. But the logical straight jacket is worn by only one brain function with signs --thought. And the function of names in actual discourse predicates on expressive (brain 2) and motivating (brain 3) energies.

Certain names refuse to be said – as “Jesus Christ”, probably, by many Jews; or “David”, by some Christians. To call a person’s name out loud is to summon their presence, according to the participation mystique psychology of primitives (Levy-Bruhl; Jung). To “Call Upon The Name of The Lord” is the priest’s, or preacher’s prerogative, congregants joining in with song, prayer, worship, fellowship, puts oneself, and all together, in a state receptive to Spirit messages (the “Word of the Lord”; “Preach Jesus”) sent by Grace. “Denotation” would be an insult in referring to Marduk. Whether this first movement by the Spirit carries further motive force, if Grace there be, depends on the presence, from an entirely different source, of the higher grade sacred cosmic substance AEIOUIA, or “remorse of conscience”.
On the soul side of sign use, designation is an act od “addressing”, standing before, or summoning, the addressee. There is a one-one relation on the soul side to the the inner unity, the essence of all things addressed. This unity, or oneness on the side of the addressee and the one addressing, is the ‘meaning’ of the predicate, carried over from one instance of the (common) named thing. Bringing subject and predicate together in an act of predication conjoins the thinking-feeling, head-soul brains, as if the inner predicate content carried by memory (and subject to instantaneous ‘lateral associations’), were “recognizing” its ‘twin’ as identical inner content in the actual object perceived in the flesh-and-blood present.

This is the 3 brain explanation of psychodynamics calls “projection” (and why it is almost, but not quite, identical with ‘expectation’). Given the lateral psychosemiotic associations with “perfect circle”, with textual definitions transcribing invariant calculations made by mathematical minds onto sky maps, accomplished by the Greeks, mirrored the movement of heavenly bodies in the sky. This was the metaphysics of the theological assumption made by the Christian Trinity (see below).

Russell’s formal definition of “The” phrases effectively split the two functions of denotation and address, ordinarily entwined in actual communication, one side or the other yielding dominance. These two functions correspond to text and token in sign use, which re-appears in formal logic in the x’s, F’s and quantifiers of well-formed sentences (hardly to be scorned!). Without the distinction, carried over from application to language as guide to metaphysics, to the analysis of communication, the use of “The” is particulate, denotational, true-false oriented to experienced reality correlated 1-1 with external, material-body-only things.

There is a use of “The” for predicates, that is to say, sign uses generalized from conscious content from the beginning. These begin as names of qualities of sense perception, as The Red, White and Blue, etc; including qualia, as the feeling of thanksgiving, pangs of remorse etc.; reaching to the level of reacting off units of predicsates, themselves, in ritual ceremonial group use. At this point in the development of articulate discourse, terms for the lower level qualities and qualia are taken up, along with unconscious fantasy templates including birth/sex trauma imprints, into logically related Hyper– myths, constructed from the totality of spatial experience mastered intellectually by star map knowledge. Plato’s discovery of the “The F of F” abstractor, discussed elsewhere, supplied a psychosemiotic mechanism for higher-level predication on predicates, but the actual inhabitants of what is mostly dismissively dubbed “Plato’s Heaven” are hardly metaphysically probed, much less subject to an ordered exposition of their totality (except for the regular solids for three dimensional space).

The generic content shared “from below” by the anatomical processes of sign users include those retained by lower brain memory-imprints. The reptilian, for countless ages the only bulb lighting up to such wattage on the line of veretebrate amphibians. Then came the mammalian, aeons of psychosemiotic soul-genetic engineering and gearing. The three brain beings, cro magnon human, super- mammal, crowned with speech and thought. I think of these as 100-75-50 watt light bulbs of different hues, burning inside one another.

A look back – then forward, from these early 1900s’ origins of formal logic to reconstructed ideal language philosophy – then laterally at any stopping point, to the present – shows that Russell’s analysis splits off the strictly textual, true-false contexts of it’s use from what it communicates in broad, unreconstructed contexts. In spoken discourse, for instance, “the non-existent”, or “the hunch there might not be a dollar much longer” slip unopposed into grammar with little denotative backing (maybe ‘qualia’). Proceeding to such firther constructions as: “the 4’s” (ambiguous in re whether text or token is intended); ‘the unicorn’ (wiki can refer you there); “The Trinity” (see 1 John 5.78) …These contexts all challenge metaphysical analysis; What are they about? Can anything true or false be predicated of or with them?

There is a one particular use of “the” outside the scope of Russell’s denotative translation, but applicable to his system writ large. It is the expression “The F of F”, where “F” abbreviates the predicate of a subject-predicate sentence of form “x is F.” In ordinary language contexts, “The F of F” plays a pivotal psychosemiotic role in the construction of higher level sign-use. “The God of Gods” predicated of Marduk by the Sumerians is among the earliest examples of such a construct. “Marduk is (the) God of Gods” is a token-taulogy for 2000 b.c Babylonians.
This form of sign use, doubling a single sign with “the” and “of”, serves an essential function in the construction of general discourse: to isolate and secondarily denote the subjective content communicated by use of an “F” term as both text and token, a predicate predicated on.

There was an inner psychosemiotic dynamic expressed by use of this “double” with “the”. English grammar uses “-ness” to re-iterate distinctness: “The F-ness of F” (cf. “Right-”, “black-”, “light-”). “The reed-ness of reed(s)” constructs what Greek philosophers called the reed’s “essence”. (Etymology: Middle English essencia and French essence, both from Latin essentia, from esse, to be, from the presumed present participle *ess ns, *essent- (on the model of differentia, difference, from differ ns, different-), created to translate Greek ousi (from ousa); see es- in Indo-European roots. –Wiki)

Though having such crucial use in constructing language for the totality of what is communicated in tokenspace, the formally generalized construction of “The F of F” ran into logical difficulty raised by inserting negation, and inference context, to generate Russell’s well known paradox of “predicates of all predicates that are not predicates of themselves”. From this springboard, to cleanse logic of formal paradoxes and self-contradiction, he invented the Theory of Logical Types, stratifying tokens of the same universe of discourse into extensional, self-consistent domains. The 7 text-token hierarchy of sign-uses applies this model of justified inference (self-consistent if mathematics is) over conscious content of all types under sign-use.

With this caveat, that Russell’s logic of quantification is thenceforward reinstated and moved up a theoretical notch, as it were, allowing predication over predicates within the universe of a model discourse of 49 square, the shift of “The”-use from: A. context of particularity to B. contexts of ‘essence’ totalities, re-opens the metaphysics of true and false predication when the subjects predicated on are already predicates themselves. What prevents bald headed kings of France from reappearing in Person in tokenspace?

Reversals In Sign Use - A Study

baldxin

REVERSALS IN SIGN USE --- Pathology of mind set


In daily life and conversation, everyone, I suppose, kids around with others by using what may be called ‘reversals’. “My, we’re talkative today,” says one getting the silent treatment. “Real smart, that. Real classy,” the sloppy dummy hears. The hint of something intended is sacred is likely to elicit a curse. Or vice versa: the vile and profane gets dubbed ‘holy’ (“Holy Shit!). Memes, like “he shot himself in the foot again”, even occur as meta-text for standard ‘reversing’ situations. Conversations today can be filled with so many sarcastic reversals, reversals of reversals, LOL’s, username and false (‘Borat’) identities assumed as positions of consciousness, it generates a thirst for clear, simple, sincere sign use uncluttered by tweaking reversals and bad metaphors. The following aims to help peel the skin off the shpiel of their spin.

But this is not merely an academic exercise. Not just daily conversation, but signs required for use as political currency in America, especially since 2000, have become saturated with reverse meanings,

- Reversal of threat to justify war. – “You threaten us”
- Reversal of democratic will of the people expressed in 2006 national election
- Reversal of whether the surge “worked” (by paying others to make it appear as if it did.
- Reversing the justification for existing by ongoing pursuit of lying wars (Type 4: obedience of son to father)
- Chief neocon Richard Perle now denyies there is any such thing as neocons (types 7-6-5: champion of American Democracy)
- Conflating military and political enemies, tacitly
identifying war on terror a war on liberals. This was demonstrated by ‘Tennessee’ Jim Adkisson shooting up a liberal church in Knoxville because they weren’t patriotic and Christian. This is projection-reversal, type 6.
- The troop build-up in the Afghanistan war was never challenged in the last general election, therefore cannot be claimed to be democratically supported. Therefore use of the term “democracy” to describe America is a macro reversal, type 7.
-



This way of being that goes by the name Republicanism springs from The Great Reagan Reversal, beginning in the “80’s”. Those who pulled it off are still spinning the same fantasies as reality now, 2.28.09. One tactic is linking power numbers (“60’s”, “80’s”; 2001, 9/11, 7/7; 2.01.09, 2.20.09) and other hyperdimensional tokens (letters encoding sub-text meanings: “H”, “G”, “L”, “M”, “X”, “V”) in templates laid out in linear sequences. The software for decoding such templates could be modeled on reverse speech analysis, assuming the same psychosemiotic mechanisms at work there are repeated at higher levels of complexity in sign use.

-Reversal of reality and fantasy: playing the role of “Mr.
President” as if hyperdimensional TokenSpace (‘destiny’
some say) had magically arranged the role he was cut out for
as a man, in life.

-- people who went along with the pretense, allowing Hollywood to dictate what America was. Hollywood America. (cf. Alec Baldwin Hulu commercial)
- Reagan’s illegal “CONTRA” war was a reversal of honorable, transparent foreign policy, signified by name.
- Reagan’s tag “the Great Communicator” was a reversal of his pattern of lying-in-the-open.
- “One mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” negates the differences that freedom fighters fight for.
- “Government isn’t the solution; government is the problem” – says the one running the government.

These macro reversals are still being ‘spun’ in post-Reagan’s America.



7 types of Reversal in order of psychosemiotic complexity

(note: The reversals of 1-2-3 => pertain only to the tokens of signs used communication, or what Freud called the ‘formal characteristics’ in regard to dream, minus psychological content; the visual/auditory stream. The phenomenon of Reversed speech, 1 below, manifests the essential elements, evolved and involved, up the hierarchy to 7-6-5 => which pertain to complex psychological reversals with text. The 4th, Reaction Formation, is where Existential Irony merges with the Palindrome (“the higher fructifies the lower in order to create the middle”), and where birth trauma meets the Oedipus complex in the course of development. Also, where birth passes over into death and rebirth through the Moral Law; not explained here. The 1-2-3 sequence is completed in the palindrome, which would mirror the “mirror-neuron system” posited by U. C. Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopnik: “Mirror neurons have become the ‘left brain/right brain/ of the 21st century.”)

****

7. Overlaid Negation When the token demonstrates the reverse of what says. (Ex. “I am not writing this.” “The truth matters”- Linda Tripp. “Do you know what it’s like to be standing in front of someone lying to you, and they know you know they are lying to you?”)

6 - Projection Reversal: inner child of adult projects themselves judged by the inner adult of a child (Ex. “You want to kill me, don’t you?” – mother to screaming 4 year old.)

5 - Ironic -- When an act performed from one intent achieves the exact opposite (Ex. exercise induces heart attack; trying to prove personal worth proves worthlessness.)

4 - Reaction Formation (Freud) Automatic reversal of one impulsive reaction (“No! No!”) to its opposite (“Yes! Yes!”).
(Ex. (sub voce ‘I don’t hate him) I LOVE HIM! )

3 - Palindrome: Communicates the same backward as forward.
LIVEVIL THOHT (See DaVinci)

2 - Mirror Writing (see below)

1 - Reverse Speech. (see website; empirical evidence is obtained by reversing recorded speech, easily done by computer software program. Just press => /forward to the \<= backward button).

Two hypotheses offered to explain the infrequent coherent speech segments obtained by reversing audiotapes.

A. Simultaneous forward-backward processing of content: that which emerges at the end is that which is pre-figured in the beginning and accounts for the origination of the S* sequence. In writing, this point* is marked by a ‘period’; in speaking, by intonation or pause. It* also explains ‘motive’, and ‘agenda’ (a(g /\ d)a). In french, denoument is used for disclosure of the mystery threading all the events leading up to it. On TV, every segment must begin with a Bang! – attention-grabber, aka shock’n’awe, whether SNL or SuperBowl commercial; follow-up with the ‘message’ (brain 1 informational content, if any); conclude with a denoument answering “WHY?”, while simultaneously slipping in a mini-drama suspense-resolution: “here’s your take-a-way” (Ex. “Time in a bottle” for girls.)

Expositors of Australian researcher David John Oates explain the phenomena in terms of “two minds speaking”. “As the human brain constructs the sounds of speech, it forms those sounds in such a way that two messages are delivered simultaneously. One forwards, which is the conscious mind speaking, and the other in reverse, which is the unconscious mind speaking.” This may perhaps stretch ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’ too far too soon. If “the unconscious mind” were speaking in the reverse replays, it should presumably provide information, at least of the sort dreams provide. It is claimed to have been used in crime solving, but such use implies the unconscious mind makes literal (textual) vs. symbolic (token-phenomenal) assertions. However, this strains credulity, requiring a serious researcher to look for grammar, inference, etc. Freud remarked that dreams were indeed types of communication emerging from non-random neuron firing (previously dismissed as such by brain theorists ignoring their psychic rrelations), but not intended to be seen – just expressed, ‘the way it is.

However, it need not be ruled out that the particular moments on the audiotape at which the reverse S* occurs, coincide with moments in the original performance when there was, in fact, an extra-energizing factor from a psychic, that is to say memory-looped source, “speaking”. This use of “unconscious’ is compatible with Gurdjieff’s three brain psychosemiotics. The extra innervation would be due to the second, or third, or a combination of the two lower brain centers ‘emptying’ (the original meaning of ‘cathexis’) into conscious brain 1 processing. These other brain ‘emptyings’ would arouse their own memories, associations, impulses, anxieties and attractions, leading to parallel S* octaves in the ‘future’.


A coincidental tokening of a reverse-packaged process occurred in the title of conservative columnist David Brook’s NYTimes article The Uncertain Trumpet (2.27.09). It is about Obama’s 2.25.09 speech to Congress, beginning: “On Tuesday night, President Barack Obama talked about a national culture of irresponsibility.
He talked about the way Americans have sacrificed the long term for the short term, spent more than they could afford, and how the country's leaders have broken promises and delayed reform. Obama described a rot that was ingrained and pervasive.”
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=20481714

The background mood of the country is blackest bile: rage, fear, impotence, alienation, collapse of dreams, crushed lives. The Trumpet, by shape, is a tube opened out, then curled back on itself as it elongates. Where it flares, the music blares. Go blow your horn. It is a very ancient, universal thing to produce sounds by blowing through tubes, pipes, stalks, hollow things in general, and among the earliest fetiches of childhood to shape hooters and tooters of all sorts for this purpose.

The Trumpet is an extension of the human vocal mechanism, as a bell is of metallic vibration. Though of different timbre and tone, both transmit formed wavelength vibrations through the atmosphere that can thrill the soul, bring down walls, kill enemies. Blowing The Trumpet is the stylized of concentrating the hyperdimensional energy under command.
Obama’s speech sounded that Trumpet through TokenSpace along the Frontier of Hope. Brooks, hearing only Nawahl wailing, calls it “uncertain”.

The background of Brooks’ personal situation is the djarktlomization of the Republican Party, neo-conservative right wingism. “An ideological sea change” which the mass of Bush backers don’t yet get, one Huffington Post writer notes, putting text to Hoagland’s hyperdimensional metaphysics. Djartklom is the process in which the figure of a higher level unity is distributed into each of parts previously bound under it. Jung traces such a process in Egyptian psychohistory in regard to Osiris. At first, there was One Osiris, personified Father of all, old Sol who rules the sky by day, is killed by Seth each night; revenged by Horus, reborn again tomorrow….then, as cycles of time accumulate, the elements of the story as a template of lived duration (EN.DUR.AN.KE) were internalized, so that not just Pharoahs, but Every Man has an Osiris: it defines The Egyptian soul. The figure analogous to Osiris for the Egyptians would be Ronald Reagan, for these Republicans. His was the unifying soul of post Vietnam war militarism, neo-conservatives (Catholic and Jewish interests, fusing the legacy of JFK and Nixon-Ford), the Religious Right, together with other factions reacting against the liberalism of the ‘60’s. Having been shot and symbolically killed, thus taking the bullet for our death wishes, Reagan was the Reborn White Male Hope. Little Horus sons were reborn on College campuses as Right Wing Moral post Hippie Student Association presidents.


B. Complementarities

Each S* in a communicating string intersects various planes of TokenSpace:

Forward-backward (the time dimension of token sequences)

1. “Human speech has two distinctive yet complementary functions and modes. The Overt mode is spoken forwards and is primarily under conscious control. The Covert mode is spoken backward and is not under conscious control. The backward mode of speech occurs simultaneously with the forward mode and is a reversal of the forward speech sounds. “
Comment. This distinction between “covert” and “overt” here obfuscates another complementarity, “above-below”, which intersects when a unified textual content is given in advance -as above - in Thought, via cerebral cortex – so below - actualized by the vocal apparatus. The overall structure and dynamics of the psyche assigns the thinking function of consciousness control over the lower, material processes causally involved in producing the actual S* tokens. Speech is only a special case, though a very important one, of these larger polarities.
2 - Mirror writing is the most transparent translation of the plane of visual space into tokenspace. A hand writing what is observed to be left-to-right script from one side of a two-way mirror, as in several movie sequences, would be producing script from the reverse direction (cf the AMBULANCE letter reversal seen in the driver’s rear-view mirror.) The two sides of a moebius strip map this. If each side loops through the “I-You 2-way nose bridge”, what occurs on the moebius is the same for both.
3 – mirror writing mirrored in TokenSpace: the Palindrome. As if the “other side” were alongside, or “in” the two-dimensional plane on which the signifying signs, written out, occur. (outside in is inside out).

Neural mirroring
http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/goldman/Mirroring,%20Mindreading,%20and%20Simulation.pdf
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a793399891~db=all~jumptype=rss This is a study of cohort responses in a participatory judgmental situation, arguing for neural mirroring effects as a factor in social relations.
The phenomenon posited here was introduced to explain the discovery that particular brain lobes in macaque monkeys are excited by a man peeling and eating a banana, as if it were them. The hypothesis that what externally perceived is internally mirrored – then mirrored again – explains a cluster of psychic

1. -spontaneous imitative behavior (“parrot”, “sock puppets” …’Rush Limbaugh ideologues’)
2. - projection with identification (directly involved in adult-child reversal)
3. -jealously (awareness of gap between self and what is perceived externally, with desire to include it as internally mirrored opposite)
4. -mind reading (internal proprioception for tokens; instinctual matching of text)
5. -vicarious participation (Aristotle’s ‘catharsis’; Levy-Bruihl’s participation mystique; the distinction between signs (level 2) and symbols (levels 1 +2).)
6. -impuses to agree or disagree with a given flow of process (resistances; alignments)
7. -flocking of groups under one leader (teacher, school)
8. -idols (‘embody the spirit’; resistance to idolatry as ‘tempting’, ‘alluring’, SINFUL if ‘yielded’ to ( loss of psychic polarity)

9. -definition of THE CRITICAL STANDPOINT: A position of consciousness contrary to the ongoing psychosemiotic process. This requires flexibility in regard to identifying with external positions that reflect one side to the exclusion of the other. This requires the results of work of transformation of perceptual messages, in order to ‘take it to the top’ and render individual personal judgment on the higher level content. A critical standpoint not backed by intellectual equipment for an apriori basis of judgment is merely obstinate resistance (perhaps instinctual).

This definition matches Gurdjieff’s “second conscious shock” – awakening work of higher S* centers from the mechanical, dream-related effects of “first conscious shock” upon entry of S in the field of perception. It is intellectual activity supplied only consciously to incoming impressions; you know you are doing it or its* not being done. It corrects the grammatical flow of text, to keep it from being swept along by the flow of tokens.

In Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code, each plot deneumont in the narrative is a palindrome. And there is a sequence of them; as if exemplifying the concept of a “totality squared”, of reversals themselves: the reversal of all reversals; a meta-palindrome. Da Vinci himself, who perfected the form, was left handed. Reversals shown together with what they reverse would be how metaphysical duality manifests in communication. Also: external mirroring of neural mirroring.

(note: The 4 4 cross-over in the 7/1  1/7 loop is also the tier in the hierarchy where moral distinctions apply to movement of objects in 3 dimensional space (conscious voluntary action).)
****

THE 8TH REVERSAL


2.01.2009 The Great Moment in the New Frontier of Hope

2.20.2009 Alec Baldwin Superbowl XLIII TV commercial

These juxtapose as bookends of the 19 day duration between the football game watched globally and Obama’s inauguration. These two singular, decisively unique America* group events define the New situation by their violent psychic clash.

Taking both together, as the public is required to do now, as collective reality distributed in the unconscious at different fantasy levels, defines a very large psychodynamic current in TokenSpace. The energy trapped in it’s flow reflects off two mirrors reflecting reversals of each other (mirroring neurons mirroring neurons). Satanic Lizard Baldwin can be taken as either Liberal, mocking mush brain conservatives; or as conservative’s projection of this to incite loathing. Both are there; and the conflict, being mostly unconscious but existentially aroused, is activated again by the Black/White reversal witnessed in the transfer of Authority. This follows the 1/7 Reversed Speech template: what comes last was the Unconscious mind speaking first. The one with “the most liberal voting record in the Senate” has been officially crowned and coronaterd.

Reptilian mind control through TV, on the one hand …..vs. patriotic solidarity with those who assembled on Washington D.C. mall to witness the 44th President of the United States being sworn in.

These two active currents flow together, through each other now. In addition, at the level of daily common group life, merger fantasies are highly cathected. A hyperdimensional vortex is pulling all together into a virtual psychotic womb-surround, filled with loathing, hate, loss of soul and pain. But with a Frontier of Hope (Hoagland).


(cf. Beavis and Butthead –mentioned a lot recently; used by Paul Krugman to describe Republican economists)


TWO STAGES OF CONSCIOUS THOUGHT FORMATION

The Two Stages of Conscious Thought

-Based on Reverse Speech theory (The 7th if => What - the as – is?)

Stage 1. Introduction (admission, penetration) of tokens (movements forming words, pictures, gestures – whatever is t expressive of state, position, attitude of consciousness) that function as a shock*. This is the content* first becoming conscious, a completed intra-psychic event (‘act’) presenting a fungible ‘mark’ (S), or ‘bit’ (snippet), which ‘arrests’ (holds…) the flow of process we call mind (‘..hostage’ to the unconscious’). The motion connecting the S’s would be drawing a string of ovals. Each oval (bit, token) represents a content collected independently of others; the line connecting them as geometric identities represents what “it” stands for to The Unconscious (pre-conscious content, in Freud’s early classification system). Thus, the fluid arm motion used to draw ovals on a tablet mirrors The Unconscious fixating consciousness on a cartouche, a place in T*Space where the Pharoah’s name appears. Tokens also supply experiential templates of text weaving in and out and through them .

Stage 2. Texting the tokens as grammatical categories used to convey a ‘message’ that can be thought in advance.

A second intra-psychic process must occur in order to transform S into S*, a sign available for use in communicating with others. For this, to transform an event in/of private tokenspace into a content accessible to all who access what is being talked in ‘the public domain’ of discourse, requires rules for common collective S* reproduction, or grammar. Grammatical order replaces the line connecting the spiral of circles, breaking them into numbers, words, functioning as units in sums and sentences. Through such rules, beginning with 1-1 correlations between names and objects agreed to by all parties to the conversation, tokens are mechanically converted into units of text in the presence of, or available to all who are present in, the ‘audience” of public TokenSpace. Supplying text for tokens gets their message “out there”.

Conversation is grammatized flow of process. It is a process connecting two intra-psychic converstions on either side of the 2-way nose bridge (ME () THEE) (= 4 strands of relations entwined in actual concersation.)


The verification of this two-stage analysis:

-direct self-observation. First ‘getting a term”; then, predicating on it talking with others.

-the disconnect between text-token shifts in different conscious states (“forgetfulness” of dope-related content – “memory” only connects Unconscious identies. This disconnect can have hyperdimensional implications. (cf. R. Hoagland)

The developmental transition from pictures to words, speaking to writing, in language acquisition. A legacy of this transition is the sequence of types in the mass media: pictures, cartoons, cartoon strips, comic books, motion pictures, TV programs (back to the future)

The two stage process is also verified in every process that mirrors it.

The1.doc

THE1 Document

By Sid Thomas


Putting The “THE” Back In ATHENA

OR -Waxing Plato’s beard, again
From the Token side this time.


Section Ia. Analyzing The -- RTD

Bertrand Russell’s analysis of “the”, as it occurs in language used with intent to assert true or false propositions, standing in logical relations to other uses of language with similar intent, has been a paradigm of formal analysis for over a century now. Published in the article “On Denoting” in 1905, Russell’s Theory of Descriptions has achieved the status of Wikipedia abbreviation, RTD, alongside Descartes’ cogito, Plato’s Forms, Berkeley’s esse es percipi and the like, as instantly recognizable references to well known content. Such tokening of classical philosophical literature, as it might be called, conjoins with other types of condensed word constructs that make crypto words: acronyms (e.g. NIMBY); common abbreviations: NATO, NAFTA, EU, G7, POTUS, GOP, AIPAC, AEI, NYT; endless lists of movie titles, usernames, menus, TV channels; mantras, memes, mandalas, marionettes dancing on music box lids; Marsyas, Mercurialis, Marduk, Mercury, Meditations (Descartes, again); … (continue list of types of types of such condensed signs used in contemporary daily electronic communications). All of these meta-signs are double text-token sign uses, as will be explained below. Such discourse, predicating on clumps, regions, tiers and figures of other predications is the chief characteristic of post-second millennium communication. It is the efflorescence of a new form of subjectivity expressed in communication, one more aware of details, intellectually active, archetypically engaged in personal interaction by selecting, bouncing around, etc..

But it comes burdened by a fatal flaw: the way the psychic apparatus processes sign uses, and due to the incentives to prosper without punishment built into grammar, the public has no protection against meta-sign use that predicates on self-contradiction. A flip of the “the” with a false S* of S* abstraction, explained below, generates just such a degenerate case of sign use in communication.

The incentive is More Bang For The (Star)Buck(s); monetary value of condensation of most powerful, moving collective content. There is a compartment of each person’s conscious orientation that can use and take responsibility for “we” content – what “we” are experiencing, but as some “I” delegates their own as defining it. Lloyd deMause calls this the “delegate” position of consciousness and traces “we” use to shared unconscious fantasies that all are “children” of the same Mother’s womb, originating from actual fetal origins of everyone’s experience. This shared region of unconscious mental life and history --birth, rebirth, re-re-birth, re-….etc. etc. ad inf. – marks the deepest, oldest, broadest flow of human mental life force on earth. The Great Transition. Therefore what delivers the Biggest Bang in S*will deliver That (The Deliverance).




It is predication over prior self-contradictory predications that generates the degenerate case, and this is seen no as reversal of the Birth Transition to Death. Bizzare as it must seem on first hearing, the signs are that this has actually taken hold. An inverse birth is occurring, a “we” drive to shrink and return into Mother’s Womb from whence all were first born; entwined causally by token associations with the images and feelings marked as “DEATH”. The drive to return to the Womb, ‘press the restart button” and Be Born! all over again … and again … has become confluent with Thanatos, the desire to die. (Literalized as an instinctual death-seeking energy by later Freud.). (This conjunction was first made by Otto Rank.) Both drives, toward Life – Birth from the Womb – and Death – psychologically required to gain Re-Birth – are brought together, entwining like the snakes on Mercury’s Casadesus, in the symbolic ritual of war as sacrifice of children by the group acting collectively for Re-birth. When it comes to war for rebirth, profit and religion go together. They call for God to order them to do it, like he graced Abraham.

The formal sin committed in sign use, to return to that, is violation of rules for properly stratified discourse, in this instance inserting “God”, from transcendental discourse, into “God” of men’s earthly oaths and rituals. The way these are connected in fact is by actual mediating processes in the form of individual personal subjective processes, as by judges, priests, preachers. This is a psychosemiotic sin because it is impossible for the text (“God” as ens realisimmun, and umma bonum) to be completed in a human token totality. Only one man, Jesus, claimed such a union with a transcendent/-al reality, which by the nature of the case could only be unique (all other approaches only through His), and required to proclaim itself as such. Negating the ontology that one man, the Pope, could intelligibly be regarded as Christ’s literal vicar on earth, was what Martin Luther and Protestantism were all about. This assumption co-opts lordship fantasy in the Womb-surround.

The violation of substituting text for its own token – substituting F for x in “Fx”, read: “x is F” gives “F is F” – is self-predication. The rule proscribing this is derived from Russell’s other major logical paradigm, the theory of logical types (TLT). A predicate, as text, cannot boot-strap itself on its own token to gain outside truth. Failure to observe proper stratification in the text-token hierarchy leads ineluctably to the paradox of “predicates of all predicates that are not predicates of themselves”, which both must and cannot be as described. Such psychosemiotic monstrosities proliferate in crypto talk, greatly aided by use of “anti-“ to externalize attitudes.

The degenerative result of following what’s wrong for so long is the psychological condition Carl Jung called enantiodromia. This a Greek term for reversal of a one-sided orientation of consciousness into its opposite, as a result of its being carried to extremes. It is what happened in Bush’s America to Republican politics.

Illustration: <= 2.17.’09 CNN “Situation Room”’s Wolf Blitzer quotes a Rep. spokesperson claiming the party of fiscal conservatism ‘lost its way’ during the Bush years, following the easy path of overspending. This, while labeling Democrat’s attempt to cut military spending “tieing the hands of our troops shedding their blood on foreign battlefields to defend their right to protest.”

Now, they have seen the light, returned to their ideological Reaganesgue roots, and are obliged by conscience, concern for our children, their children, indeed, for all of God’s children of the future, to oppose this horrific spending package the Women Jew Democrats call a “stimulous”, like they do – always dressing Death up as sexy.

No, said Wolf, charges of inconsistency don’t trouble them. Who can prove they’ve done anything wrong?


Section Ib. (con’t.)


Russell’s analysis of “the present king of France”, the phrase, used as subject of predication, “…is bald”, construes “the” as part of a definite, as opposed to indefinite or general, description of some object of reference, theoretically replaceable by a proper name of the object in logically equivalent expressions: “the present king of France is bald” is true if and only if “ ---- is bald”, where “….” would be the place a name would occur, if there was one. Of course when Russell was writing, there wasn’t; that was the point of using that example, to analyze what happens, inferentially, when there is no nameable individual, as assumed.

The analysis of “the” supplied by RTD begins from, and itself predicates on the function of, discursive, fact stating language. As, indeed, philosophy itself has ever done, explicitly since Plato. There is a use of language according to reference; true or false; existent or non-; with common consistent features qualifying as organized knowledge, or science. If uses of signs per se is taken as the over-riding category of reference (metaphysical primitive) , this interest in sign-use (S*) specific to philosophy can be said to concern text. Text is what is expressed by grammar, the hypothetical totality of S* whose intent is cognitive.

However, shifting outside this totality, yet standing alongside philosophers and scientists, surveying the place from which cognition appears as only “one half” or “one side” of what any S* is communicating, there is use of language for a vast number of other purposes. Actual contexts -- conversation, ‘ordinary’ language – requires actual tokens, fungible particulars -- spoken words, inscribed letters, pictures, word-picture formats (cartoons, comics, movies, Youtubes, Tweets, etc.) – in formal settings, or frames. These empirical traces of sensory brain-firing present “the other half” of what is communicated on the actual occasion. These frames supply processing templates for linear word/idea sequencing. The sub-conscious psycho-neurological causal processes deposit the result of their firings, looping perceptual content back through the cortical brain, present sentential and other complex textual sequences that standing in logical relations to each other ‘seen’ by a separately functioning inner brain scanning quality and qualia.

The conjunction of the two independent flows-of-process, one causal, the other logical (Mercury’s Cadasus), is the unit S*, the ontological product of text x token. S* => (the) text of a content of consciousness; S* <= (the) token whose occurrence expresses the text.

Illustration 1: large case letters used to indicate Proper Names (<= doubled; token modification used to express intended reference to an individual).

Illustration 2: As empirical entities, tokens have material causes, while texts do not. Movement of the arm in intentionally drawing a circle illustrates knowledge of circularity transferred from brain 1 to brain 3, through vision-will brain 2 link.

Section II. The S* of S*

Double Text-Token Abstractor.
Uses and Abuses in metaphysics.

The predicate of a subject-predicate sentence “x is F*” distinguishes the mental content common to variable instances a, b, c, …etc.. What it refers to, or discriminates in perception in each case, can be mentally re-introduced by reviving tokens of the predicate sign, leaving names aside altogether, as indicated by the gap in “…is F”. This gives the a Quinean “open sentence”, replacing Russell’s “predicate”, but the difference is not important here.

This itself – the act of distinguishing what can be brought back by S*, parallel to but not causally on the same track as, what is causally brought back in perception – abstracts and bonds two repetitions as ‘universals’: qualities repeated in experience and tokens repeated in Sign use. The act of abstracting qualities from instances by name goes with, and without careful attention is confused with, the act of recalling the name; and, indeed, the fact that these occur on separate causal tracks is shown when a person misspeaks: “Oh? Did I call it blue? I meant red.” In general, the so-called “problem of universals” that has so taxed the great minds of philosophers since Plato, through the Christian Middle Ages, and into analytical philosophy of science, has turned a great deal, in my opinion, on this massa confusion, inability to distinguish tokens of text in communication from the other flow of qualities and qualia of experience. However, this is best shown in detail in contexts where it relevantly occurs.

When the text of a sign use S* is turned on itself, as a token, the resulting form S* of S*, a particular kind of “doubling” of the communication situation occurs. Just as a lecturer might pause, noticing their own perhaps exaggerated hand gesture, so the flow of attention through communication in general doubles back on itself when repetitions stand out. This “doubling back” ‘loops in’ secondary associations, including what can be abstracted from meta-S* constructs. Thus, when “the” is added, to give “the S* of S*”, it functions to bring back, and loop in, the mental, or subjective side of what it predicates. Thus: “the circularity of circles” becomes a construct on which valid predications can be made, since instances can be instantly produced on demand by moving a pencil. By this “of” relation (other prepositions can be used), turning the text of an S* on itself as a token, there is produced an abstraction of its “essence”, what it brings back from the side of the object by what is subjectively reproduced. This entirely internal construct, performed instinctively and mechanically, but nevertheless validly (if properly done), is the psychosemiotic key to Plato’s Theory of Forms. It is based on The Form of Forms double. Further back in history, preceding Plato’s use by 2000 years, had been the psychosemiotic condensation of The God of Gods personified by Marduk (also identified in ancient Sumerian mythology with the number 50). The Ram marking the Age of Aries on the Zodiac, followed by the Fish marking Pisces and the Waterbearer marking Aquarius are also double token-tautologies in primordial TokenSpace.

Example: From ancient Egypt derives a text attributed to the Great God Ptah titled “THE VOICE OF TRUTH”. This is a text-token double that would certify itself by predicating on the experience of what it communicates. (It would be hard to raise critical questions …)

Section III. Wrong “The” use

-to individuate abstracts from false constructs leading to predication on self-contradiction.

From “the unicorn”  mythopoeisis  Alexis Meinong
A Meinongian will distinguish what is real from what exists, arguing that some “the” expressions designate possible entities, whereas others, e.g., ‘the round square” do not. Thus, ‘the’ expressions must stand for something real, if only ‘mentally’, as an ‘idea’ --since logical distinctions are predicable of them; though not all exist. This position coincided historically with the philosophical idealism of F.H. Bradley, T.H. Green, Schopenhauer, Hegel, articulated most succinctly by Berkeley’s esse est percipi: to be is to be perceived. This is the metaphysical position that the objects of immediate and ineluctable certain knowledge in any and all cases is subjective: mental, not material. It takes the implication of the causal theory of sense perception worked through intellectually by John Locke, assuming the atomic-molecular theory of matter discovered in the 17th century. The physical world is not solid, as it seems to be in the space of three dimensions. “Solidity” is an “idea”, Hume pointed out next; the originals of all ideas occur in sense experience, Locke had also assumed. Thus the commonsense assumed world of material causes inhabited by people moving their bodies about in three dimensional space through time is a mental construct, a kind of illusion; yet containing all the reality any or all of them will ever know with ineluctable certainty. Thus, paradoxically, expansion of objective empirical knowledge of the universe by Newtonian physics was compensated by contraction of data given the knower to reason from. The given data are phenomenal qualities; colors alongside pangs of conscience in the same individual’s field of awareness. A kind of inversion of external-internal orientation of conscious perspective has occurred, concentrated by focusing the results of scientific theory on the process of sense perception. In reference to that process, the cause of perception of color quality begins from light reflected off a surface into the eye, stimulating nerves terminating on areas in the occipital lobe of the brain near Brocca’s area. It is the end result of this highly complex, mediated process, typically confluent with other nneurological firings from the same areas of the brain in order to form an articulate speech act (“I see a red spot on the wall, over there”), expressing what is called “perception of wall with a red spot.”

. However, 1. this is equivalent to saying merely that ‘the’ expressions do communicate sufficiently, by their grammatical form – have psychosemiotic sense – to call attention to and discuss. There is no need to introduce a “reality” for these “the’s” to “represent.” 2. RTD preserves the relevant logical distinction in the language of “exists” predicated with names. (‘Reality’ becomes a redundant and misleading construct, breeding => “metaphysics” with a false object language.)

*****
My Case against “the” : indiscriminate abstractor of S*- construct content…

From “the Fedora” to “the Duke” (‘the F’ => ‘the D’) => ‘The F-D’

- The word “the” can be used to generate perfectly ambiguous constructs, S* that require a third factor (an approbation: second brain contribution) to individuate the description. But when the third factor is added, the psychodynamic associations introduce a second grammatical up-take, so that an adjacent universe of discourse pops up having to do with something wildly different. The result can be Hillarious: a sudden text-token juxtaposition of opposites that jolts the processing systems. Or Devastating, as in the picture of Vice President misspelling “tomato” in a grade school classroom, avowing “the mind is an awful thing to waste”.




Section IV. Using “The” Best
-Valid arrangement of the approbative Pyramid hierarchy.

THE GOOD and The Good of the Good (Idea Beyond Reality)
-The BAD

-The Ugly (From movie title: shifting text to personified token)

THE TRUE,
-The False (and)
-The Illusory


THE BEAUTIFUL
-The Ugly (and)
-The Intolerable

Yes, There Is No Magenta !

http://www.biotele.com/magenta.html

AMERIKA’S MAGENTA SOUL

Analysis of the white light spectrum show that magenta is not a real color. It is a color qualia created in the brain at the place in the spectrum of light waves opposite green, in the manner of feedback compensations supplied by optical nerves after staring at a dot for a minute, then looking at the background (where it reappears with opposite hue). This, together with argument from illusion,, mirage, perspective and much else (including quasi-sensory hallucination, lucid dreams, vivified intuition and the contents of all ‘high’ and ‘peak’ experiences) establish the phenomenal level of discourse, predicating on experience organized by the brain(s) of the perceptual apparatus, from data arising externally from many altogether independent causal sources, internally from sub-ordinate (reptile/mammalian brain) nodes.

AmeriKa, the collective entity sustained by self-delegated “we” sign users, taxpayers, official citizens, has been led under G.W. Bush and the Republicans to commit THE SIN OF SINS, following the Biblical Children of Israel at SIN.AI. (SIN  the Moon God, Nannar; brother Marduk, father ENKI. .AI  Mountain)  Mountain of the Moon God Regression of the Children of Israel to worship of the Golden Calf, connected with Baal, Egyptian Osiris, and Seth, who defeats Sol, the Bull of Heaven, each night after its daylight passage has ruled the skies. In later psychosexual confabulations on this mythopoeic cosmology, during the night, by the light of SIN, Osiris’ sister Isis and Thoth re-assemble 13 of his dispersed parts, minus the phallus, but a wooden substitute is supplied to deliver his enormous mythic fecundity to birth Son Horus next morning (shining light of Father and Son are identical, and seen in the Eye). The Children were regressing to the Zodiacal age of Taurus, whereas Moses (circa 1500 b.c.) is bringing down another Law from SIN.AI intended to birth Sol/Horus in Aries. The sight of their SIN (<= transposed token) impels Moses to Break The Law; smash the very stone it is written on.

Applying the double text-token abstractor (se below), the Sin of Sins America has committed belongs to the same template as worship of the Golden Calf: the return to Taurus even from Aries, and sacrificing Pisces to boot, to arrive at the false Water Bearer (Staples) Soul of Aquarius. Please let this be heard.

The Soul, considered as the unified function of the second (post-reptilian, pre-cerebral) evolutionary mammalian brain, can be diagrammed as 7 continuous segments on a colored revolving moebius strip. These hues, seen in complimentary opposition to one another at any given stopping point, will lack an opposite for green, except for a false feedback magenta qualia formation caused by staring at one side (point) of a two-sided (+ background) surface a long time.

.AI is also: the Sin of AI.kan (Joshua 7). => Madoff
Artificial Intelligence
A. False brain processing model of syntactic speech analysis (textualist metaphysics).
B. False information on which war in Iraq was predicated.

The Sin of Sins in Group sign use is Predication on Self-Contradiction: a subject term that binds simultaneous affirmation and denial of an identical proposition. A conjunction of What Is with What Is Not; absolute incompatibles treated as One, a Unity. The very representation is an explicit sacrifice of Reason. And, indeed: since Reason can be consistently applied to the qualitative only from one side of the moebius at a time. Now, when the constant circular movement arrives at green, returning to it compulsively even as the Greenness of Planet Earth is disappearing, it is met on the inner side where the soul should be by magenta, SIN.AI soul color. This illusory spot, which IS and IS NOT, becomes a magnetic esoteric center attracting complimentary color bondings that improperly complete the trajectory around both sides of the moebius.

Example of self-contradictory way of being (predicated on false soul unity) is U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan.

 aim: to win hearts and minds of Afghans
<= acts: drone bomb killing of hundreds of civilians.

These are inconsistent, but that is disguised by R. Holbrooke linking both as one policy.

Another example is the Democrat party drive toward “bipartisanship”, and “unity”, with Savage-Hannity-O’Reilly conservatives like Jim Adkisson, who killed with declared of political hatred of liberals. <= => Countered on the liberal side by Salon’s piece by filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, on “watching Republicans Grieve” – that’s what she called it – over the loss of the White House with Obama’s election. Sympathy for the white man. But Republicans are not grieving. That’s snake-brain recoil Ms. Pelosi is taken in by – similar symptoms.

Post on Putnam

Reply to Post on Hillary Putnam (Original Dissent Forum -2.7.'09)

There is no God’s Eye View of Reality

Thus spake Mr. Hilary Putnam in Reason, Truth, and History.

Putnam speaks of metaphysical realism and objectivism, from both an externalist and an internalist point of view.

Objectivism is a special case of metaphysical realism. Putnam argues that metaphysical realism is incoherent from an internalist perspective. This incoherence results from the impossibility of the externalist view; one cannot place the self outside of reality in order to find a unique perspective in which to view reality.

Putnam shows that the externalist view is logically impossible because metaphysical realism is formulated within symbol systems. “The metaphysical realist views of meaning, reference, knowledge, and understanding all make presuppositions about symbol systems and their interpretations that are logically incoherent.” Putnam argues that there cannot be “exactly one true and complete description of the ‘the way the world is’…there can be no God’s eye view of reality”.

Putnam is not arguing that there is no reality, i.e. basic realism, but only that the epistemology of the externalist view is logically incoherent. The problem rests on the assumption of the availability of a “God’s eye view”, which is inherent in the externalist perspective. We can not step outside of reality, we are part of reality. What is needed is an internalist view of reality, i.e. we must develop an epistemology that recognizes that we are functioning as part of reality and that it is impossible for us to just step outside and become an observer with a God’s eye point of view.

In place of metaphysical realism Putnam proposes another form of realism: internalist realism wherein we take a point of view in accordance with the human functioning within the world of objects and not externally from the object. To quote Putnam:

“I shall refer to it as the internalist perspective, because it is characteristic of this view to hold that what objects the world consists of? is a question that it only makes sense to ask within a theory of description…‘Truth’, in an internalist view, is some sort of (idealized) rational acceptability—some sort of ideal coherence of our beliefs with each other and with our experiences as those experiences are themselves represented in our belief system—and not correspondence with mind-independent ‘states of affairs’. There is no God’s Eye point of view that we can know or usefully imagine; there are only various points of view of actual persons reflecting various interests and purposes that their descriptions and theories subserve.”

Yes, there are other consciousnesses. Maybe Putnam hasn’t got that far along in his understanding of what’s what (substitute the “R” term for “reality” here if you like). It’s one on the first things taught at Gurdjieff schools, the Teacher sees to that. The Teacher is “God” as far as this Putnam claptrap goes; and, if one is brought to the point of being able to actually observe themselves objectively -- which may take years, lifetimes, aeons in Purgatory (Texas) for Hasnamus individuals -- such high level recursive constructs as “reality”, “objectivity” “can’t step outside yourself”, “externalist” v “internalist” “point of view”, “mind”, “meaning”, “logic”, “inference”, and so on and so forth, ….one sees how the assumption of coherent verbal unity of a single Philosophical System For Brain 1 (thinking center of consciousness; vrs. Brain 2 – feeling, Brain 3 – moving) as posited by classical philosophers and theologians is psychosemiotically impossible. (contradicts the metaphysical conditions of discourse in general, which requires all three centers functioning to communicate common content by using signs, such as these words).

Putnam (I’ve actually has the barely comfortable experience of riding in the back seat of a car full of philosophers, going to an Upstate NY conference in the mid 60’s – pinched nose) got metaphysically lost, along with Rorty, Kripke, and all “philosophers of mind (language, speech acts, literature)” -- in the New Age Passover (see Like 22.10; compare with Mayan 2012 a.d., The Black Sun Nibiru, 1600 b.c. now returning) from Pisces philosophy, completed by logical empiricism (quantificational logic, with non-ramified theory of logical types* (to allow for fuzzy sets at lower predicate levels) ….passing over to Aquarius, the Age of Communication psychic flow of process philosophy. Think “OBAMA”. There’s philo in action for ya! (btw I’m a friend).

(As for the question itself: how does Putnam know God (if he dares actually use the word) isn’t Universal consciousness, with H.P.’s own one of His unfolded flowers? eh?)

Dancing In TokenSpace

DANCING

With all three brains

IN TOKENSPACE

-While Playing Group Fantasy Tunes
Riffing Plato’s Air Guitar

SUMMARY OF WORLD NEWS TODAY


The numbers 2210 - 2012 link the text of Luke to the sun’s passing over from Pisces to Aquarius by the sign of the water bearer.

2012 is the date assigned by researchers to the Return of Nibiru, Planet X. to its nearest approach to earth.

The date 1.20.2009, President Obama’s inauguration, is interspersed, marking

WHITE BLACK
+

Man (skin) soul

-Exchange of opposites following commitment of the Sin of Sins

(Philosophical excerpt:

-The S* of S* form of sign use can be called Plato’s Text-token Abstractor, a recursive mechanism built into hard-wired re-uptake of signs used as Names, when repeated in situations apart from their designata, reassociated by the token with the common subject content – counted as its ‘essence’. This assigns the name to two different mem-brains, explaining the role of “doubling”. Rx.: The Word ‘Word’ contains the essence of all words as its meaning: of itself, first, then all other applications. When the names apply to content present only in the upper triad (of the 7-tier hierarchy of S*), generically called ‘thoughts’ by Descartes, they were taken to denote pure intellectual relationships, as given in mathematics and geometry, as forms of knowledge apart from, but applicable to, objects given in sense perception (the lower triad of S*) )


-SIN was originally the moon god of Ancient Phoenecian/Canaanites.
-AI was ancient Egyptian for “Mountain”
-SIN.AI, from which the Children of IS.RA.EL received the 10 commandments (Exodus 20) is the mountain of Sin, the moon God.

S* Syncretism

IS - IS -- splitting the Egyptian Goddess ISIS Cf. AB. – (father)
-SUN – RA -- splitting Egyptian monoGod -- .RAM (Aries)
- .. .. .. .. .. EL -- Marduk Sumerian revenant.

Also: AB. … father
RAM … Zodiacal Aries.

+ RA => AB.RA.-AM –Zodiacal patron/patriarch personifying the Spirit of the age following Taurus, The Bull


The moon is the dark, feminine side of the two large heavenly bodies circling earth, borrowing it’s light from the sun, as we understand, and learned ancients knew. However, they counted Darkness as a positive quality, not merely absence of Light. Fear of darkness is every child’s reminder of oppressive late term experience of fetal origins, when torso is cramped, oxygen depleted, waste disposal inefficient; followed by passing through the birth canal; followed by First Breath and Light (VICTORY AT SEA!); a template of before-during-after repeated perpetually ever after in: A. the bio-rhythms of sleeping and waking states of consciousness; and B. the cycles of day and night marked by exchange of dominance of sun and moon.

The importance of this reification of Darkness is it becomes an abstracted psychic reality, as if exerting a mysterious ‘power’ over the person by what or who ever elicited the feared trauma reaction. The deepest, oldest stratum of neuro-biological imprinting brought back by Darkness are, from the standpoint of later experience and regression, the Mother -- as fearful Witch <= the Strangling Monstrous Poisonous Placenta of fantasized return to the womb. This “dark’ side of the conscious experience which rises each morning after nighttime sleep is feared because it was painful. Loss of it’s sight leaves the body helpless. “The Dark” thus acquires a double referent: external, in the moon-Sin mountain; internal, in the Mother-Placenta Monster. TEN COMMANDMENTS are given as law to ‘children’ passing over from captivity in Egypt to birth in the promised land.

Those who live in Sin live in Darkness. They worship the Moon Goddess, the Mother, like Freud said. The incest taboo is the demand of the Father to leave the Darkness of Sin and turn toward the light. The penalty for not doing so, Adam and Eve were told back in Eden, is death But the serpent (snake brain) already knew that this was only figurative – referring to death of the soul (brain 2). Which, however, is indeed death to the person as a completing totality. (They can remain 2/3 alive.) But living in sin, but with the fear of darkness overcome, is a regression. When Moses came down from SIN.AI with the tablets and found them worshipping the Golden Calf of Canaanite/Phoenecian Baal (the EL in IS.RA.EL), he BROKE THE LAW (literal origin of the metaphor) at the sight of their regression. It was as if they did not inwardly want to turn away from the Dark Mother Egypt and Be Born.

The Sin of Sins, turning directly to the Platonic Text-token abstractor, would lie in reversing the positions of Light and Dark in sign use – specifically, sacrifice of the Son of the Sun, Christ, to the Moon-Mother God Sin.


Putin’ it all together

OBAMA: (following McGovern, Carter,

THE DEBT OF SIN

-Redeeming the Good (Light) side of the white man’s soul,
having taken back onto himself the surface ‘racism’ based on skin color (Dark).

This is the psychodynamics that got him elected. It fits with the Illuminati agenda of preying on white man’s guilt, and intra-group differences, to usher in commitments to global issues, by generalization. Thus, America is converted ipso facto into an instrument of neoconized (anti-Chriatian) morality of the SIN type.

-As Beloved One – anointed, was the word most often used for his inauguration; recalling ritual phallic ointment – Bringer of Light (Lucifer), he is also Sol Niger, incarnate. (Sol => the Sun; niger => Dark: Sol Niger  DARK SUN )

His father was a black man, his mother Midwestern native American. Thus by blood lines, and following the British-Admiralty law citizenship, an Adoptee. But this is the personal side of the Unconscious, speaking with Jung. Precisely by virtue of this (matching the white Father-Son template of 41 -43 Bushs), his Cosmic/celestial Group-fantasy status blends with the visuals (staged events, TV, Press conferences, patriotic celebrations, etc.) of AMERICA’S FIRST MULTICULTURAL PRESIDENCY -- PREGNANT WITH THE FUTURE.

`
The Honeymoon was short lived. Direct from Hollywood boutiques, darkskinned girls who love babies can now produced several at a time. OBAMA’S FIRST PATRIARCHAL DECISION WILL BE HOW TO PROVIDE FOR 8 PEEMIES ETC. FROM NOW ON. (“TIP OF THE ICEBERG -- )

Sol.0-moon (or Sol-om-on, depending on how you parse should have had it so good. (My hint: let only the anti-abortionists be care givers; that might chill their fervor, or confine it to religious precincts where it belongs.) And Clinton only had to deal with “Don’t laugh, don’t tell.”

In short, DEBT of the SIN OF SINS, committed by Bush Father-Son dyad, is to be paid off by Sol Niger, the white man’s skin-soul inverse, blending mythologized Transpersonal Global patronage with a post 60’s American adopted son. That is why many were crying “HEY! WE DON’T KNOW THIS MAN!”. It is this transcendental aura, linking the 4’s (inside each 8 hemispheres) that was invading their consciousness; they could feel, but not understand, what his presence was bringing in. Chicago ward politics, ambience of right wing University of Chicago neocon guru Schwartz (political unity comes from opposing common enemies – by negativity) provided a personal background myth.

And at this point, we square the internal –external cosmic circle. The Dark Sun rising on the inner side by the unconfronted, unrepentetant SINNERS SQUARED is met now in Zodiacal Psychohistory by NIBIRU’S RETURN.

THE BLACK SUN BROUGHT BY THE BLACK SON
IS AVATAR OF HITLER’S 4TH REICH.


*****
This is the group fantasy read-out of OBAMA . HE HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO PAY OFF THE DEBT OF THE AGES AND MARK THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRANSIT FROM PISCES TO AQUARIUS IN TOKENSPACE.

Christ => Mercurialis: The Age First Man Transition

Zodiacal Age transition: Christ => Mercurialis

For “First Man” archetype

Pisces – Aquarius (astral theology)

Context: The Last Passover

Luke 22.1-11. Jesus is returning to Jerusalem to be crucified and is here arranging the last supper to be shared on the Jewish day of Passover. The celebration of their brotherhood that follows becomes the archetype repeated every Sunday in the Catholic mass and, less often, the Lord’s Supper by Protestants. It is Christianity’s ritualized time presence.

-22.10 And he said unto them, “Behold, when you have entered the city a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house which he enters.”

Token connections:

1. Passover => celebration of yearly cycle => celebration of Great Year transition from Pisces to Aquarius.
2. Man bearing picture of water: commonly known symbol of Aquarius.
3. Peter and John directed by the Man of Pisces to follow him into the house which he enters => houses: segments of the 12 sector zodiac successively occupied by the rising Sun on the eastern horizon each morning (a.m.).
4. => passing of Sun-Ra rising in Pisces to Aquarius


A.D. 2012 - last date on Mayan long-count calendar.

As if: that marked the end of a ‘period’, duration or era. The coinciding numbers, rearranging the sequence as if ‘intentional inexactitudes’ were encoded, criss-crossing years and continents, to connect the symbol of Aquarius in Jerusalem to ancient South American Andes civilization.

(credit to Jordan Maxwell for pointing out Luke 22.10 content:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8394844811105390386 )

The Mid East is a Way of Talking

THE MID EAST IS A WAY OF TALKING


Maxim of Taroof: (a mode of polite social exchange in Iran)
****
Invoke the opposite

”You’re not saying you killed 6 million fucken jews?...”

“..I know full well that for many of you, I never be anything more than a skinny black guy rocked in a cradle…” (

To Evoke the Reversal

“NO! – I mean, yes – I…” (Catches reaction formation amidships)

****

This practice appears to be psychosemiotic testimony to how ancient Persian civilization is.

It encodes an adaptive process that neutralizes adverse reaction to the content of what one wishes to ‘get across’ by advance identification with it, as if perfectly justified. “You should have nothing but sticks and curses for such a donkey as I…” disarming the opposing position by identifying with it. This catches them off guard, =>’s them to

Mythopoeic truth erasure:

“Long age and far away”…”True, but not really…” “Everywhere but nowhere …”

Such phrases present the soul brain’s perception of reality, shielded from brain 1’s prickly and irrelevant criticisms. “Truthiness IS truth,” for it. For it, “to be is to be communicated”, esse est communicatio. However, the psychosemiotic style of its expression does quite ‘square’ with the attitude expressed, unless the co-respondent takes it in a particular way, as jocular, heheheh, ‘you’re putting me on’ gambit. If they are not in that mood, and perhaps resist going there, it will be resented or at best ignored. To hear “I know I’m nothing to you!, but..” => subtexts to: “I know I’m a problem for you, but...”, popping up => “On Guard!” reflex.

For this style of self effacing “you want to hit me, don’t you?” psychosemiotic gesture can also work as the snake brain using brain 2 (soul) pull on regard for intellectual honesty (“Don’t deny that crossed your mind, asshole”) for brain 1 to acknowledge. This is what arouses ‘suspicion’.

It is not a malicious sign use per se, as nor any psychosemiotic mechanism. It can be a way of saying “I’ve got your number, bub; whatever you say.” It can be a welcomed icebreaker to real feeling expression. (“Well, as a matter of fact,…”).

This, I think, explains the venomous intensity poured out against Iranian president Mahmood Ahmadinejad in his 0’7 U.N. visit. This quality was palpable, heaped on by an insulting introduction by Columbia U.’s president to him, as invited speaker. It seemed evident that he was being treated as a poisonous serpent, which, apart from statements about ‘wiping Israel off the map”, I simply didn’t get. But it seemed as if HE did. Something in the composed glint in his eye said “this LOL’s on you, morons”; a powerful existential to quoque. It is style taroof, taken as proceeding from the reptile brain. Protestation confirms what it would deny.

The reaction toward him as venomous snake was an in-kind brain interaction outside the psychic depths of most non-mid-easterners. America was audience to this unconscious exchange. Of course “WE” cannot openly favor one over the other. We love them both. Unruly children, they’re, refusing to settle their differences and move on. Maybe under the leadership of Obama?

This closes the cycle of argument, again, because this is where the glitch entering discourse in Vietnam hasthat has invited this deadly repartee into American discourse.


TAROOF ME UP, SCOTTIE!

(Or: the collapse of the bubble of Israeli group fantasy)

The entire nation is shapeshifting under the twin snake brain assault of Israel and Iran.

The clear winners of the protracted, extracted, etc. ‘08 election, by default, were the two “I”’s in the Mid-east: Israel and Iran. Now, their eternally irreconcilable soul-snake brain coiling and recoiling has become a war dance of death.

The ’08 election stole and virtually buried democracy. No anti-war, pro-Palestinian, anti-Georgian voice was heard to countervail both party candidates’ positions and commitments. Pro-Israel policy has never been approved by the American electorate; has never even been on a state or national ballot. Yet, from all the kow-towing, wooing, ass-kissing the candidates did to win “the Jewish vote”, down to apparently paying Hillary Clinton $10 mill to blurt out “obliterate Iran, I would!”, anybody would swear it was all or mostly about them. And that the great majority of Americans ‘voted with their feet’ to give unflinching, robust, unqualified support to Israel. Whatever their political leaders decide; ‘our strongest democratic ally in the Mid East’, they’r.

That is one point. A countervailing voice against the policies of the candidates these issues, was never heard. Yet they are presented and predicated on as having been democratically approved. That is a stolen election, and the thieves are those who want war with Iran.

Iran is predicated on as virtually packing nukes already, by Israeli spokespersons. Threatening East Europe, if not D.C, NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, calling for a missile shield and strong NATO response. To Israel, the threat is said to be “existential”. They can’t live with it. Even the idea of sitting down eyeball to eyeball with Ahmadenijad and his taroof is rejected – on grounds that snake brain psychology explains.

With this array of tokens, texts spanning the full hierarchy of self-referring S* used collectively. These determine how people ‘be themselves’ communicating as Americans. When we call ourselves “we”, the common bond of fetal origins is tokenized – even by the sound, since it is one used universally for “we ones”, “wee”, and “wee wee”. L deMause has defined the inner sense of ‘membership’ in a group (logically transposed to “class membership”) as the fantasy of shared fetal origins, siblings in a common mother’s womb. This connects tokens of “we”- ness, not only to totalities, as if “I” and “all” occupied the same portion of TokenSpace (and “one for all” texted it); but also to original sin, Aiken, the need for punishment (split off => projected into a group ‘enemy’), and the need for salvation (split off from Jesus => Barabus/Barnabus/Madoff) => ’08 election and Israel’s obliteration of Gaza.


O’Bubble Obama

Totally fetalized, inside the MSM group fantasy “we” bubble. They’ve taken away his blackberry now.

Total transparency – he sees us; we see him; the same language is spoken; crises are being addressed. Yet something seems not-quite-right about what is going on, despite honest and sincere efforts to observe every protocol and tacit understanding to make it appear so. The pictures don’t quite go with the words. Something ain’t ‘square”. In fact, a psychosemiotic Reversal has occurred; a false reality has become squared under self-contradiction. What is presented as ‘total transparency’, us seeing him seeing us, is total illusion. Truman Show reality. America the reality show.

A kind of fantasy-reality psychic inversion is under way, with America desperately trying to disappear into the same oblivion-womb from which it is equally desperately trying to free itself. “We” have disappeared into the bubble with Barak. “WE”, in fact, through the omnipresent MSM, are Obama’s Second bubble. The consequences of pursuing unsustainable, self-destructive policies for all these years of Bush are multiple crises all now look to the new president to resolve.

The Third Bubble, containing our “WE”, is the “existential threat to Israel,” so called. This is one widely used term for the current acutely felt collective state vis a vis Iran’s growing* nuclear capacity. The collapse-upheaval stage of Zionist group fantasy is taking place in it, to burst it.

This is documented by Professor Bennie Morris, Ben Gurion University:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/opinion/30morris.html?em
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
“Why Israel Feels Threatened
MANY Israelis feel that the walls — and history — are closing in on their 60-year-old state, much as they felt in early June 1967, just before Israel launched the Six-Day War and destroyed the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies in Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.”
“Closing in”, collapsing walls of the group fantasy womb surround => mounting ‘pressure’ felt by Israelis to “burst out”, as Bernie Morris triumphally reminds all they did in ‘67. His closing remarks recapitulate this theme:
“Israel’s sense of the walls closing in on it has this past week led to one violent reaction. Given the new realities, it would not be surprising if more powerful explosions were to follow.”
The template is actual shared birth process, flashback to the “time” when “we” have come ‘full term”, and “given the new realities” are driven by repetition-compulsion to Blast Out, the upheaval stage in which an ‘enemy’ springs to life in TokenSpace, externalizing the Poisonous Placenta.

Even as this is written, cable news channels reports IDF soldiers ready to go into Gaza. But great hesitation, and Reversals, abound. The attempt to show themselves decisively in charge is having the opposite effect. It is beginning to look to all the world like ethnic or ideological cleansing, that is to say genocide.

The enemy this time, Hamas, was democratically elected ideology in Gaza. The MSM portrays them as scavaging militants hiding in civilian areas using women and children as human shields. “Holding Gaza hostage,” was Sec. of State Rice’s term. This is a Reversal. “Hamas” is become a token of their Poisonous Placenta that must be violently destroyed in order to for them to ever breath free.
“Existential threat” translates: bubble 3: Israel’s collapsing womb-surround; Iran nuke threat in the East, Gaza targeted for genocidal violent rebirth.
There is one legitimate S*thread justifying Israel’s attack: the clause in Hamas’ charter that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. This is given various wordings, but this is the phrase commonly used to justify getting Hamas classified as a terrorist organization. It is inside the grammar of this third bubble (which contains the bubble that contains Obama) that theological connections (soul-snake brain twistings) blend with geo-political ones (pure snake) to generate political (soul brain) process. This process itself is Squared by the politics of abortion: the theologizers (the higher) declare those who favor legal abortion (the lower) to be ‘baby killers’ (the abhorrent ‘middle’). But a reversal has occurred at the point where the higher blends with the lower, whereby the adult “God” is predicated of the “unborn”. => terminating pregnancy ‘any time after conception’ shears a psychosemiotic processing link between subject and predicate in anti-abortionist’s grammar. This is the regular site of reversals: where higher blends with lower. If the reversal occurs, the resulting middle will be twisted, unsquare. If it, in turn, is further predicated on, the result “squares the contradiction.” Such forms are extremely common, wherever a political term is used with the expectation that one who challenged it would be defeating themselves by doing so (“Yes, indeed, I approve of murdering babies”). “Pro-life” is used this way. Abortionists are pro-death.
… Wall Street, Lehmann Bros. Madoff, Spitzer, all gone. Womb-surround collapsed. Only a violent rebirth effort can save them from reaping the wages of original sin. This effort is being waged in Gaza against Hamas.