The Cartesian Crisis

Wittgenstein's Ruler, Semiotic Signs and the Marxist Simulacrum

Oct 01, 2025

“Wittgenstein’s ruler:
Unless you have confidence in the ruler’s reliability, if you use a ruler to measure a table you may also be using the table to measure the ruler” …
— Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Let’s start this article with a series of questions in relation to the above quote - Wittgenstein’s Ruler.

Can we trust and rely upon the ruler when we measure the table?

For example, who provided and manufactured the ruler, can they be trusted and are the measurements correct (i.e. true)?

What is the observer’s understanding and interpretation of the meaning of those measurements?

Does the observer’s understanding of the ruler’s measurements enable us to better understand the nature of the table?

Or is the table illuminating the nature & poterntial (un)reliability of the ruler’s measurements including the moral character & confidence in the provider &/or manufacturer of the ruler?

Is there such thing as objective measurements without an Observer’s interpretation and understanding?

“Objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without an observer” …
— Heinz von Foerster

If the rulers measurement marks/numbers are semiotic signs that communicate meaning, do those semiotic signs communicate the meaning of ground truths or do they communicate lies?

“Semiotics is in principle the discipline studying everything which can be used in order to lie. If something cannot be used to tell a lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth: it cannot in fact be used “to tell” at all” …
— Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics

Who determines the veracity of such truth claims ?

For example, the Primacy of Human Consciousness ( e.g. Sophists and Marxists where Reality is a Social Construct [LINK]) or alternatively , the Primacy of Existence [LINK] that reflects a unity of the whole where meaning of the concept aligns with it’s practical effect (i.e. Peirce - Pragmatic Maxim) - an intelligible conceptual dimension of the meaning of Being anchored in the relationship of this Being (Dasein) to Being ( Sein)?

Is the meaning of the measurements derived from the ruler anchored in three modes of being (Peirce) beginning with being in the world (e.g. physical ruler and physical table - ontological (Aristotle)) - to mediation and abstraction to the mind (i.e. mediated by signs - ruler observations & measurements - epistemological (Kant)) - to a unity of whole - phenomenological - meaning (ie. Peirce - Pragmatic Maxim where meaning of abstract concepts aligns with its practical effects - (Peirce))?

“But by “semiosis” I mean, on the contrary, an action, or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs”…
– Charles Sanders Peirce

In arriving at the meaning derived from the Semiotic Sign which interpretive semiotic framework was applied?

For example:

Dyadic Saussurean Semiotic European Structuralist perspective; or a
Triadic Peircian Semiotic perspective.

Does the process of bringing a sense of coherence to meaning (i.e. mediated via semiotic signs) to the human mind require a metaphysical geometric unity that brings together Aristotle’s Ontological Categories, Kant’s Epistemological Categories and Peirce’s Phenomenological Categories ?

The integration of three modes of being (Peirce - Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness) and three modes of human consciousness (Peirce - Primisense, Altersense and Medisense) - refer to Charles Sanders Peirce.

[LINK] - The Philosophy of Semiotic Boundaries and the Role of Signs

Ancient Indian Philosophy’s approach to Reason

“You must understand the whole of life, not just one little part of it. That is why you must read, that is why you must look at the skies, that is why you must sing, and dance, and write poems, and suffer, and understand, for all that is life”…
— Jiddu Krishnamurti

In Nyaya, Vaisheshika and Ancient Wisdom - Lessons from our Past [LINK] two schools of ancient Indian Philosophy were briefly explored.

Nyaya and Vaisheshika emerged between the 6th-century & 2nd-century BC and gradually converged into an integrated Hindu metaphysics and naturalism philosophical framework anchored in the duality of inference and perception.

Ms Sarah Welch, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Nyaya is focused on knowledge (epistemology) and logic.

Vaisheshika is focused on metaphysics and ontology.

They are both spiritual and philosophical.

Integrating our embodied experiences and agency (Material World) with abstractions, concepts, and valid knowledge ( Mental World ).

Ways in which we can understand, codify and simplify our participation in Being in a complex emergent Material World.

An ancient ambition to remove human suffering which unfolds through our ignorance of Reality.

Nyaya provided a pathway to enlightenment and eternal life through uncovering via debate (vada) knowledge ( knowing the truth).

Nine Lessons - Nyaya and Vaisheshika Philosophy

In the article, nine-lessons from Nyaya and Vaisheshika Philosophy were gleaned including inter alia:

The Material World is Non-Ergodic & Emergent - In Vaisheshika ontology, the concept of a “substance” has a distinct and different meaning from the Western Philosophy of Aristotle, Locke, Kant et al. Rather than having a “permanency”, it reflects a locus of properties that can “change”;
Integration of our Material World - In Vaisheshika there is the concept of Inherence — the mechanism by which parts come together as a whole;
Absence as important as Presence - In Vaisheshika and Nyaya there is a notion of Negation which again is an ontological concept anchored in a Duality. There must be absence and presence. Negation can be Absence or Difference. Absence can be further sub-categorised into Antecedent, Subsequent or Absolute;
There is Good & Bad Reason - refer below;
Valid and Invalid Knowledge - Nyaya philosophy maintains that Invalid Knowledge will eventually be exposed through our Material World practices ( a form of philosophical pragmatism);
Reason, Knowledge and Logic begin with Perception, Abduction and our experience & agency in the Material World - In Naya philosophy perception is a two-stage process that begins with a non-conceptual perception by way of contact between our senses with the external object ( a Material World phenomenon). We then have a conceptual perception generated by the deployment of concepts that generate a conscious level perception (a Mental World phenomenon). A Geometry of Concepts;
Perception is to our Material World as to what Inference is to our Mental World - Nyaya and Vaisheshika philosophy integrate Hindu metaphysics and naturalism philosophical framework anchored in inference and perception. It’s a two-body process — Material World — Experience, Agency, Perception— with — Mental World — Abstraction, Reductionism, Inference. It’s a shift beyond a Mental Structure form of consciousness that has largely dominated Western thought for +2,000 years. Reason, Epistemology and Logic are all forms of Embodied Abstraction;
The Material World is complex and knowledge sits across the topology of the Network of Society ; and
Trust is essential to Knowledge - Nyaya Philosophy recognises Testimony (Shabda) as one of four forms of legitimate knowledge. It highlights the cornerstone role that experts can play in Society and the importance of integrity & reliability of the source. It also recognised that knowledge by testimony also requires a symmetry — a knowledgeable & reliable person as the source , but also that knowledge must be understood by the person receiving it.

Good and Bad Reason

“The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality” …
– Nikola Tesla

This difference between modern Western (Cartesianism) and ancient Indian Logic was illustrated in a recent ABC podcast titled — Logic in Indian Philosophy [LINK] — through a simple example.

Western Logic can have “formal” perfection and be absolute (i.e. ergodic, binary, certain).

“All chairs are 50 feet tall, my mother is a chair. Therefore, my mother is 50 feet tall”…

is an example of a sound piece of Western Civilisation term logical abstraction.

However, in ancient Indian Nyaya philosophy, such an observation would be seen to hold little or no epistemic (knowledge) value simply because it does not tell us anything about our Being in the Material World.

Good Reason is more akin to Scientific Reasoning that integrates Abstraction & Inference with Experience & Perception.

Combining French Rationalism with British Empiricism.

[LINK] - What is Science? - Was there a real ever-present risk of retreating to a World of more and more abstraction (Platos Cave) ?

[LINK] - Avoiding Plato’s Cave - Recognising Peirce’s three modes of Being

Reason is a quality (i.e. Peirce’s Phenomenological Categories) that integrates our Mental and Material Worlds.

It was also a perpective highlighted in Materialism, Idealism, Cartesian Dualism and the Crisis in Classical Physics - Ontological Philosophical Errors [LINK] which challenges the prevailing Intellectual Academic Orthodoxy that was embracing an increasingly Cartesian Mental Structure interpretation of Reality (also refer to Heidegger - [ LINK ]) grounded in more & more abstraction in contrast to our embodied Being in the World (a Unity of Being - participation in Reality through the act of Being and relationships of Being’s).

[LINK] - Materialism, Idealism, Cartesian Dualism and the Crisis in Classical Physics - Ontological Philosophical Errors

It is also a failure to recognise:

Triadic Categories of Thought [Aristotle, Kant, Peirce) [LINK];
Triadic of Being (Rosmini) [LINK];
Triadic of Reason (Aristotle (Deductive), Kant (Inductive), Peirce (Abductive)) [LINK];
Semiotic Metaxic Nature of Human Being (Voegelin and Peirce) [LINK];
Triadic modes of Being (Peirce) [LINK];
Property Dualism - Conscious Self and Being [LINK] [LINK] [LINK];
Peirce’s Semiotic Triadic and Pragmatic Maxim [LINK];
Triadic of Substances (Physical) (Material, Form, Essence) [LINK]; and
Geometric Metaphysical Unity (Metaphysical) (Being, Knowing, Meaning) [LINK] role in achieving a Sense of Coherence [LINK].

The Cartesian Crisis

Note: What is the meaning of this picture?

Does it contrast Triadic Thomism and Scholastic Theology, Philosophy & Metaphysics grounded in Christian Theology & Ancient Greek Philosophy with Modern & Post-Modern Marxist Dialectical Materialism and Evolutionary Darwinism?

Note: How can the universe be intelligible ( e.g. truths are self evident - Scottish Common Sense Realism) through the scientific method without the Logos and relationship between the Contingent Being of Man and the Necessary Being of God ?

Note: Evolutionary Biology and Metaphysics & Theology are two distinct domains. One is a scientific theory on the process of change in the natural world and the other is the Study of Being/Science of Reality and a Higher Metaphysical Order and Telos.

Note: Cartesianism reflects a Primacy of Human Consciousness ( res Cogitans).

Marxism is grounded in a Primacy of Man and views Reality as a Social Construct (e.g. Historical Materialism).

Cartesian’s argues that the certainty of one’s own existence is discovered through self-reflection.

Both don’t assert that man creates his own existence as a final cause (as if existence depends on human will).

Descartes believed that the final cause of human existence is God, not man himself. He reasons that because humans are finite, imperfect, and dependent, they cannot be the source of their own being. Only a perfect and infinite Being (God) could be the ultimate cause of existence.

In contrast, Marx as a materialist rejects a Metaphysical Teleology.

[LINK] - The Deconstruction of the Logos - The Dark Age of the early 21st Century

What is the Cartesian Crisis?

Has Modern and Post-Modernity resulted in a retreat to a Primacy of Human Consciousness (e.g. Cartesianism, Nietzschean Perspectivism, Modern Gnosticism, Idealism) and Primacy of Man (e.g. Theology of Marxism - Man as God)?

In the most simplified terms is it the difference between Good and Bad Reason as highlighted by Ancient Indian Philosophy (refer above) and more recently by 19th-20th Century Philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce [LINK], Dr Allan Savory (refer video above) and Nikola Tesla (quote above)?

[LINK] - Ego-focused trait of narcissism

Can it also be viewed as a Theological, Philosophical and Metaphysical Crisis [LINK] rooted in the deformation of the truth of Reality?

“The philosophy of Eric Voegelin offers insight into the causes of the twentieth-century nightmare, causes, he suggests, bound up with the very nature of “modernity” itself.
According to Voegelin, the great modern ideological movements— communism, fascism, national socialism — are neither random and inexplicable outbursts nor solely the products of particular material and historical conditions.
They should be understood instead as the extreme manifestations of a form of spiritual disorder or psychic disorientation that springs from certain tensions inherent in human existence.
For Voegelin, the crisis of modernity is in essence a spiritual crisis rooted in a deformation of the truth of reality”…
— Linda Raeder

[LINK] - Voegelin on Gnosticism, Modernity, and the Balance of Consciousness

Ignoring the Triadic Metaphysical and Physical relationships between God, Conscious Man and the Natural World that had been the intellectual scaffolding [LINK] for Western Civilisation’s flourishing for over +2,000- years [LINK] [LINK] [LINK].

[LINK] - The Triadic Intellectual Scaffolding of Western Civilisation

Theology of Marxism and the Destablisation of Western Civilisation

“The civilised world has been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years.
Any country grounded in Judeo-Christian values cannot be overthrown untill those roots are cut. But to cut the roots — to change culture — a long march through the institutions is necessary”…
— Antonio Gramsci

[LINK] - Betrayal - The Destabilisation of Western Civilisation

[LINK] - The Naked Communist: Exposing Communism and Restoring Freedom: Unmasking the Secrets, Subversion, and Legacy of Communism - and - [LINK] - The Naked Communist

[LINK] - The Self-Destruction of the West - Nominalism, Materialism, Nihilism and Marxism

The Marxist Simulacrum

“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the World. And since, as Swift says, it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought”…
— Roger Scruton

“Was there a failure to recognise that nominalism’s truth claims are conventional rather than natural which therefore inevitably leads to order being imposed by force — a will to power?”…
— The Complexity Void

[LINK] - Scruton on Totalitarian Ideology

As outlined in The 21st Century Panopticon - Digital Surveillance and the Regulation of Thought [LINK], New Totalitarianism - Secularism and the Politics of Immanent Anthropomorphic Salvation [LINK], Civitas Hominis and Civitate Dei - Secularism and the Divine [LINK], and Administering Truth - Progressive Marxist Ideology, the Modern & Post-Modern Administrative State and New Totalitarianism [LINK] the combination of:

Western Civilisation increasingly replacing the Theology of Christianity[LINK] [LINK] with the Theology of Marxism [LINK] and a New Totalitarianism[LINK];
Various powerful encumbent globalist interests [LINK] prefering a collectivist Hobbesian Political Philosophy of State governance over a Lockean Political Philosophy [LINK] of Individual Natural Rights and internal Self-Governance which results in an increasing role and concentration of power in the State [LINK], Corporations & Global Trans National Organisations [LINK] ( noting according to Benito Mussolini Fascism is Corporatism) in areas such as Human Rights [LINK], Universal Values [LINK] and Freedom of Speech [LINK]; and
A Globalist Secular Post-Modern Liberal Orthodoxy [LINK] [LINK] has become the dominant ideological social & tribal group across our Institutions [LINK] [LINK] which results in a necessity for political & ideological conformity (compliance) [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] and in turn, increasingly shapes the Overton Window [LINK] of the Public Sphere [LINK] on what can construed to be acceptable thought,

had resulted in the emergence of the Marxist Simulacrum including Simulacra of Being - When the Map became the Territory [LINK], Signs without Substance - Anti-Humanism and the Denial of Being [LINK], Manipulation - Dialectical Materialism and Marxist Theology [LINK], The Illusion of Liberation - Modern Man’s Attempted Revolt Against God, Nature, and Himself [LINK], Geometries of Unknowing - An Absence of Being [LINK], The Self-Destruction of the West - Nominalism, Materialism, Nihilism and Marxism [LINK], The Ideological Capture of Western Civilisation Institutions and the State - Progressive Marxism and the Administrative State ( incl. an unelected Fourth Branch of Government ) [LINK], Subversion - Changing perceptions of Reality [LINK], and The Obfuscation of Intelligence - Modernity, Post-Modernity and the Tower of Babel [LINK].

Note - In the illustration above , what does the Semiotic Sign mean? - Is Grok’s answer correct? - How would we know? - Does the interpretation and representation of the semiotic sign by the human mind (an abstraction) have any nexus to the act of Being (existence) and relationships of this Being to Being or are we trapped in Plato’s Cave (a simulacrum mediated and manipulated via semiotic signs with shadows on the walls)?