Inexact Sciences and Sciences of the Inexact

We left off yesterday with the metalinguistic principle that words have a dual function: they are about reality and for communication; or for the communication of reality. If not, then we're done here: we are all tenured. 

Sounds simple, but you could say that this is the wedge where the Evil One gains entry and causes so much mischief. And there are actually two wedges, again, the one between words and reality, and the one between minds; the is former an "objective" space, the latter intersubjective, i.e., between subjects.

But even the objective world is imbued with subjectivity or it couldn't be known. 

This is somewhat paradoxical, but it's really orthoparadoxical, so it's cool. It doesn't mean we're falling into subjectivism, although it's certainly possible for that to happen if you don't situate yoursoph in a larger metaphysic which is the very ground and possibility of objectivity. Most folks just call it "God," but whatever you call it, it is the Fact without which there couldn't be any others.

Thought can avoid the idea of God as long as it limits itself to meditating on minor problems.

The life of the intelligence is a dialogue between the personalism of spirit and the impersonalism of reason (Dávila x 2).

Subjective and objective, respectively. I might add that the intersubjectivity alluded to above is also grounded in the Godhead -- i.e., between the Persons -- but you already knew that. Except for the guy who believes the Serpent is the hero of Genesis. 

On the one hand, paying attention to vulgar politics is a waste of time, but on the other, you can learn a lot about reality by watching the unreality of the Brandon administration play out. I'm talking about Jen Pierre Psaccharine's daily briefings. In a way, they're a microcosm of the Devil's playground, of what he can do to a mind -- and to language -- if given a free rein.  

Let't talk about dignity: when someone is lying to your face, they're trying to deprive you of your dignity, aren't they? To put it conversely, an adult human being, by virtue of being one, is entitled to the truth. Therefore, truth and dignity are very much entangled. 

But truth itself is also entitled to a certain dignity. For my money, if you live your life not caring about the intrinsic dignity -- or privilege -- of truth, then you're paving your own way to hell, brick by brick. So don't blame God when you arrive there. 

"Anyone who speaks," writes Pieper, "has a desire to communicate." Yes, but what if one desires to "communicate" a lie? First, this means that truth is superseded by passion, such that the order of the world is inverted, which, you might say, is both the first and most recent crime, AKA Genesis 3 All Over Again.

Of course people are capable of lying. But can a lie, strictly speaking, constitute communication, given the fact that the person who is lied to only appears to share in a reality?

Like anyone else who has an extensive education in the social sciences, I have been lied to. A lot. Then again, was it a lie if my professors really believed it? For on the one hand,

It does not appear that, in contrast to the natural sciences, the social sciences reach a state of maturity where anything idiotic is automatically obvious.

My field -- psychology -- used to be merely idiotic. Now that it has been fully infested with wokeness, it is flat out crazy, and has surrendered with both hands any and all dignity it could once claim. Thus,

The natural sciences, where the process of falsification prevails, take only errors out of circulation; the social sciences, where fashion prevails, also take their achievements out of circulation.

Nevertheless, in the final analysis,

Properly speaking, the social sciences are not inexact sciences, but sciences of the inexact (Dávila x 3).

Sciences of the inexact: metascience. Which is a subset of metaphysics, as is the metalanguage under discussion. 

Back to the potential problems of language:

Speech which emancipates itself from the norm of (real) things, at the same time necessarily becomes speech without a partner (Pieper).

Or on other words, cosmic ønanism -- for which reason this type of communication is infertile. Either that or it engenders monsters and/or clowns (or oftentimes monstrous clowns), in case you haven't (lower case g) gnosissed. 

Let's not pass over that little truthbomb: emancipates itself from the norm of real things. For it is certainly possible to emancipate oneself from real things. I know this, because I was once paid good money to help people who had become, in one form or another, emancipated from real things. But I was in the minority, for the majority of psychologists are of the liberal persuasion, and will do their utmost to further emancipate their patients from reality.

What is meant by the "emancipation from the norm of (real) things?" What is meant, essentially, is indifference toward the truth. After all, truth implies a link to reality (ibid.).

For example, biological reality. From the actual APA website:

Transgender is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity or gender expression does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth. Some who do not identify as either male or female prefer the term “gender nonbinary” or “genderqueer.”

Or this:

The negative impacts of climate change on the health and well-being of individuals, communities, and nations are growing more frequent and severe, with members of some groups—including persons of color, persons of lower socioeconomic status, women, older adults, children, and persons with disabilities—at greater risk than others.

Remember when "the inmates are running the asylum" used to be a metaphor? 

To be continued...