3.2.2 |
THE HIGHNESS-CATENARY MISASSOCIATION |
The meaning of high (as well as low, and to a lesser
extent also of superior and of inferior) is as broad as the
meaning of positive (and of negative).
High may mean strong, strict, luxurious,
noble, serious, exalted and so on, while it
literally, that is, originally, refers to strong positivity in physical
space dimensions: elevated, tall.
(Note that, physically speaking, there is no highness
catena, since the predicates
high, neither high nor low and low are no more than
the positive predicates of the altitude catena, a
quasi-monad, which is the same
catena as the shallow-or-lowness catena, a
quasi-hexaduad.)
In compounds high may refer to every advanced state:
high-born, high-frequency, high-minded,
high-spirited, high-tension and so on.
Because high is suited for all kinds of purpose, provided there is
somehow a great degree of realization, it is used to normatively evaluate
things or states of affairs as well.
Now, highness-catenary
misassociation is the process in which normative highness (that is, a high
or superior normative value) is associated with something that is high in
a factual-modal sense, or in which a certain form of nonnormative highness
(or superiority) is associated with something that is high in a normative
sense.
It is caused by the homonymy of the terms for the highness-catenary and
positively altitude-catenary predicates in question, or by a factor of
which the homonymy itself is a result too.
Catena values are assigned on theoretical grounds, for example, on the
basis of their relationship with empirical values, or on the basis of the
relationship of the catena concerned with other catenas.
In ordinary language values are called "high" when they are positive or
very positive, and "higher" when they are more positive or less negative.
Therefore the (very) positive empirical values and the positive
catenical
values may be considered 'high' in a purely empirical or
catenical sense. Given the existence of a catenical normative
principle, and following traditional language, nothing would,
then, appear more 'self-evident' than that a high normative
value is to be associated with a high catena value, and that
normative highness or superiority is inherent in positivity.
Thus those who do not understand that language is not only a
product of their thought, but that their thought is also a
product of their language, will but too easily, consciously or
unconsciously, adopt some normative principle of the form the
more positive, the superior. The idea that something is
superior in a normative sense, because it is more positive or
higher in a factual-modal sense, will then be accepted as
'normal'.
On such a reckoning negativity automatically has a low normative value,
with neutrality or
perineutrality falling
somewhere in between.
A traditionally common form of highness-catenary misassociation
is the assignment of normative highness to objects in a
higher state of development or evolution. Examples are a higher
evaluation of the human species as compared with other animal
species, because this species has reached a higher evolutionary
plane; or, a higher evaluation of intelligent people as compared
with other people, because intelligent people have a higher
intelligence quotient; or, a higher evaluation of technologically
advanced societies as compared with so-called 'un-' or
'under-developed societies' which are still on a lower plane of
technical development.
Examples of where
primary things draw their
normative highness from their physical highness are mountains, columns or
other tall objects adored for their highness or tallness.
(In the event that they are relatively long and narrow, there is the
additional phallic element in the worship of such objects.)
But highness-catenary misassociation works in both directions.
Not only can high or tall things become superior in some doxastic,
normative sense, things which are superior in such a sense also tend to be
conceived of in traditional thought as high or tall in a physical sense.
And if not visibly high or tall on Earth, then high in the sky where
supernaturalists locate the abode of the god(s).
In a one-god setting Mono 'in the highest' is thus claimed to be attended
by angels 'on high'.
Familial exclusivists do not
shrink from speaking of "high-born", and from using a title such as
Highness for people they consider, unlike other members of the
public, to be 'honorable' simply because of their family relations.
These so-called 'high-born' individuals may also be higher in a
normative-religious sense: they are then 'high' (for example, king or
queen) by the grace of Mono, the 'Most High' of the
theodemonist religion adhered
to.
Indeed, it once was, or still is, normal in
religionist countries that those who
style themselves "high-born" or "highness" (and who were, or still are,
styled by collaborators in this way) also held, or still hold, a high
political office, such as that of head of state.
They even used to be, or --incredible as it may
sound-- still are, both head of state and head
of the established temple society in their country.
Such religionist systems are actuated, among others, by a number of
highness-catenary misassociations which substantially diverge from the
values of neutral and inclusive thought.
Where the antiquated
paradigm of highness has not
yet ceased to reign and continues to abuse the state, it is high time that
the paradigm of equality and relevance be substituted for it.
