0069 Chapter three (Ancient Bodies, Modern World) completes the author’s theoretical approach, which has been critiqued, using the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce. The authors are not aware of a novel vision that encompasses their view that biological evolution involves adaptation into proximate niches of material conditions. The ultimate human niche is the potential of triadic relations. Why are hominins capable of switching proximate niches? All proximate niches are perfused with signs.
Heying and Weinstein are not alone in this regard. Few modern biologists (before 2023) have considered Razie Mah’s three masterworks, The Human Niche, An Archeology of the Fall, and How To Define the Word “Religion”, that pertain to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the first singularity, and our current Lebenswelt, respectively.
Yet, even without a well-articulated theoretical framework, Heying and Weinstein can draw lessons from biological evolution as it is currently configured, as if adaptations2H and phenotypes2V belong to the separate disciplines of natural history and genetics, and no one is quite sure how they belong to a single actuality.
Plus, disciplinary knowledge in biological evolution is superior to advocacy, in the same manner that a professor is superior to an instructor.
0070 Our bodies evolved in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Our modern world in the 21st century is a hypernovel episode of our current Lebenswelt.
So, lessons from our biological evolution will show how our modern world is not so good for our ancient bodies.
0071 The remaining chapters contain applications.
Chapter four (medicine) applies guidance to the topic of medicine.
Figure 29
And, the cultural intersection looks like the following.
Figure 30
0072 At the end of chapter four, the authors offer a section called, “The Corrective Lens”, in which they encapsulate their guidance on medicine.
0073 For purposes of this examination, I will look closely at chapter five (Food).
Figure 31
0074 Guidance2, the intersection of professors2H and podcasting2V, enters into the nested form of postmodern internet education3 and situates the possibility of the authors’ disciplinary expertise along with their mission (which is to join your team at the same time that you join theirs)1.
0075 The chapter starts with two warnings. First, there is no fixed recipe as to what to eat. Second, food is not merely nutrition for survival. Eating food occasions social engagement. Yes, cooking is important. So, is eating with others. Know the culinary habits of your lineage.
Here is a picture of what the authors are offering.
Figure 32
0076 Here is how they proceed. Place food2 in the place for species2 as the single actuality2 that is composed of adaptation2H and phenotype2V. Then, consider the following intersection from more than one point of view.
Figure 33
0077 The first adaptation2H that comes to mind is cooking with fire2H. What does fire do to raw food? Elevated temperatures break down cellular and structural impediments to digestion. Cooked food provides more calories than raw.
The corresponding phenotype2V includes changes in the ways that we perceive flavors. Cooked food tastes good. But, that is not all. Cooking offers an occasion for everyone to eat together and talk. In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in,humans practice hand talk, which means that no one talks while eating raw food. But, with cooked food, one does not have to eat and eat and eat and chew and chew and chew to get nutrition. Plus, cooked food tastes better! Plus, afterwards, everyone can sit around the fire and enjoy conversation.
In this respect, after the domesticatin of fire, hunter and gatherers have it good.
Figure 34
0078 But, what about our current Lebenswelt? What about the 21st century?
0079 Our current Lebenswelt is one of specialization. After the mechanical revolution starting in the early 1800s, specialization increases beyond imagination. All sorts of new species of “food for humans” arise in the 21st century. And, one popular item is called, “fast food”.
On the horizontal axis, the normal context of product selection3H brings the actuality of processed food2H into relation with the potential of industrial food processing1H.
On the vertical axis, the normal context of business development3V brings the actuality of restaurants2V in line with commercialization1V. Commercialization1V appears to be like the genome1V. Think of brand recognition. Each brand has a slogan. Slogans are the DNA of advertising.
0080 Here is the resulting interscope.
Figure 35
0081 Well, that is my guess as to how the author’s discussion plays out.
Every inquirer will come up with a different scenario.
That is one beauty of this type of exercise.
0082 Once can replace restaurants with diet regimes. Once can replace processed food with vitamin supplements.
On top of that, different topics are available. Fire is just one. Fire is domesticated in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
What about other domestications?
Animal and plant domestication occurs much more recently. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether animal and plant domestication begins in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in as opposed to our current Lebenswelt. Dogs are domesticated in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. What about pigeons?
0083 The topic of food shows me that there is a big difference between cooking2H and eating2V in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in and processed foods2H and restaurants2V in our current Lebenswelt. Guidance is required. Guidance2 is the single actuality that combines the professor2H and the podcaster2V.
0084 The same exercise of playing with intersections can be performed for the family, covering chapters seven (Sex and Gender), eight (Parenthood) and nine (Childhood).
Oh yeah, guidance is needed here. The authors provide valuable insights.
0085 As a complement to the authors’ guidance and insights on these topics, consider A Second Primer on the Organization Tier and A Primer on the Family, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-work venues.
0086 In chapters ten (School) and eleven (Becoming Adults), the authors wrestle with 21st century social constructions that do not adequately conform with human adaptations that belong to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
On top of that, contemporary grammar schools, high schools and colleges in the modern West are… um… not what they were before 2017.
That ship has sailed.
On all levels, your instructors1H are now assigned2H to inform you, the student, of an actuality2a(1V) that guides the internal dynamics of the postmodern educational system2V: political advocacy.
More on that later.
0087 Former hunters and gatherers face questions, such as, “What are schools supposed to do? Why are the rituals of becoming an adult tied to modern schools?”
Yes, children are raised by parents. But, are schools more than an extension of parental authority? Yes, they are.
In terms of our evolutionary history, childhood and adolescence prepare the individual for a certain degree of specialization, characteristic of team activity.
0088 This allows me to propose, for the authors, an approach to include in their next book. After all, if anything, this examination shows that their guidance is the first step towards an entirely novel curriculum outside the bounds of higher education2.
0089 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, children and adolescents are “schooled” in the ways of team activities. Plus, each individual is given opportunities to compete to join a cooperative team. Each individual is expected to exercise his or her talents.
If there is guidance by adults who are not the parents of a child or an adolescent, then that guidance opens a door to joining a team activity. Teacher and student share risks within the team. Every success benefits the team, directly, and all social circles, indirectly. These risks and benefits accrue as the team encounters the world out there (the ecology and environment).
0090 Here is a picture.
Figure 36
0091 At this point, I can see that Heying and Weinstein’s book recapitulates an ancient paradigm, within the hypernovel world of the 21st century.
The student says, “Guide me.” The teacher says, “Join my team.”
Patronize the darkhorse podcast and join the team.
0091 What is team activity2?
Team activity2 is a genus-specific trait2 that regularly entails guidance by non-parental members of a band. Team-activities2 is a single actuality2 that contains adaptations2H and phenotypic traits2V. So, I can place the term, “team activities”, into the slot for “species” in the intersection for biological evolution.
Figure 37
0092 Now, I can make alterations to this intersection, based on literal and metaphorical interpretations of the elements.
0093 First, I alter the potentials, then the other elements of each intersecting nested form, as follows.
The genome1b((1V) decodes DNA2a. Similarly, one’s motivations1b decode one’s talents2a. Talent2a supports an internal motivation to join a particular team1V. The phenotypic expression2V is a desire to participate2V. To participate2V is to belong2 in the normal context of both individual and team development3V.
The niche1b(1H) is the potential of an actuality2a that is independent of the adapting species2a(2H).
What is the actuality that is independent of all team activities?
It is the world out there!
Adaptation2H occurs in the normal context of natural (the individual must perform the appropriate tasks) and cultural (the individual must work for the team and with other team members) selection3H. I call the adaptation competing to cooperate2H. I shorten the slogan to comp-to-coop2H. Comp-to-coop2H coheres to the definitions of direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity and altruism. Compete-to-cooperate2H explains their evolution. Comp-to-coop2H emerges from (and situates) diverse potentials of the proximate niche1H.
0094 Here is a picture of the adjusted intersection.
Figure 38
0095 Well, this does not look modern at all.
Where are the desks lined up in rows, facing the instructor? Where are the threats by administrators2H for instructors1H to tow the line of the latest trend in advocacy2a(1H)?
Take a look at the corrective sayings that Heying and Weinstein offers as guidance. Do not fear. Respect others. Follow fair rules. Protest unfair rules. Do not get comfortable. Do not get complacent. Take risks.
All these suggestions describe the intersection of team activities2, in the normal context of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in3, arising from the potential of our talents and the world out there1.
0096 How does the current state-supported education system twist our natural being into something that can be controlled in a top-down political regime?
It channels the competition to cooperate2H into state-defined (and regulated) specializations2H. In order to gain entrance into a specialization2H, one must attend school and become certified.
It channels the desire to participate2V into state-defined (and regulated) bodies of knowledge2V. One must go to school in order to achieve certification in regards to that body of knowledge2V. Mastery of the real separates professors2H (pre-2017) from instructors1H (post-2017). State-regulated bodies of knowledge may be real. Or, they may be fictions that high-level administrators want to be advocated. Who knows the difference?
0097 In the 21st century, expertise2 is the single actuality2 that encompasses specializations2H and certification2V.
Here is a picture.
Figure 39
0098 With this diagram in mind, take another look at what Heying and Weinstein have to say.
Plus, consider the trauma that they endured.
Higher education (post-2017) has become a gamed and rigged system.
0099 Surely, there is more to Heying and Weinstein’s guidance than meets the eye.
Higher education (post-2017) resolves the intersection, by removing all the mystery.
Perhaps, the mystery dissolves into ways that administrators and their political allies rig and game the system.
When an intersection breaks down (that is, when it loses its mystery), it resolves into a two-level interscope.
0100 The following two-level interscope resolves the contradictions of expertise2.
Figure 41
0101 The actuality of postmodern (and modern) specialization2b virtually emerges from and situates school certification2aas the gateway to participation in a state-regulated system. State-management1a channels personal motivations1a. So, jobs1b are never satisfying, because they satisfy regulatory requirements1a and simply assume that personal motivations1aapply.
0102 At this point, I look backwards to chapter three (Ancient Bodies, Modern World) and forwards into chapter twelve (Culture and Consciousness).
Consider the following figure.
Figure 42
Can I say that culture goes with adaptation2H and consciousness goes with phenotype2V?
Figure 43
If so, then the above figure re-articulates the mystery within chapter twelve. Chapter twelve juxtaposes culture2H and consciousness2V and plays the one off the other. But, in reality, these two actualities pertain to a single actuality2, the Homo genus.
0103 “Homo” is Latin for “man”. “Genus” is Latin for “general kind”.
Consider how modern wordplay has twisted the meaning, presence and message of these terms.
Then consider the value of this book, as well as Weinstein’s darkhorse podcast.
0104 Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein are professors, once adapted to the niche of higher education (pre-2017) and now adapting to the niche of podcasting (post-2017).
Currently, higher education eliminates the distinction between disciplinary mastery and educational mission. Higher education (post-2017) resolves the mystery of team activities into a rigged system of regulated specializations situating school systems that game certifications.
The niche of podcasting keys into the evolution of team activities. In order to join the team, one patronizes the podcast. The next step, a crucial endeavor, concerns certification. How does one certify what another person has mastered while listening to and supporting podcasts?
This is the question that I pose at the end of this examination of Heying and Weinstein’s book.
Surely, we need guidance in answering the challenge.
0001 Professor Gad Saad is an expert in applying evolutionary psychology to contemporary consumer behavior. He publishes a book, titled, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. The cover of the book is adorned with a graphic. A hand holds one end of a thread that goes on to become a line drawing of the human neocortex. Is the thread going into the head? Or, is the thread (of common sense) coming out of the head?
I suppose I have to read the book to find out.
0002 Saad gets into the push-pull operation in chapter four, titled, “Anti-Science, Anti-Reason and Illiberal Movements”. He lists four contemporary academic beings… er… parasites: postmodernism, social constructivism, radical feminism and transgender activism. Each movement… er… parasite is founded on a demonstrable falsehood. Each desires to be free from reality.
For these comments, I use gender as an example.
0003 In order to diagram these statements, I consult A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction. These primers, by Razie Mah, are available at smashwords and other e-book venues. They are not long. They are very informative.
0004 A parasite feeds off a host.
The host goes with the content-level. The parasite places content in an alternate situation.
0005 I begin with the host. The host takes the actuality of men and women2a, which emerges from a biological distinction (which, in turn is an actuality in another nested form)1a in the normal context of an orthodox view3a. The term, biological distinction1a, is short for the potential of sexual dimorphism, as expressed in humans1a. Roughly, “ortho” means “right” and “dox” means “doctrine”.
Figure 01
0006 Obviously, this content-level is scientifically, reasonably and liberally situated by cognitive psychology and its companion discipline, evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists explain the findings of cognitive psychologists in terms of natural selection and genetics: adaptations and phenotypes.
0007 The social constuctivist approach runs opposition to cognitive (and evolutionary) psychology. The social constructivist claims to situate the orthodox view, with the possibility that biological distinctions are irrelevant. Instead, only the human will is relevant. Gender is a personal choice. Gender is an act of the will.
The resulting situation-level nested form looks like this.
0110 Even weirder, what if the organizational objective2aC of the postmodern academy3aC, arising from the righteousness of radical individualism, marxist worldviews, and big government (il)liberalism1aC, is, as Dr. Saad claims, a self-deceiving parasitic syndrome?
What if the organizational objective2aC triggers susceptible individuals to identify as “oppressed”(2b)2aC because the privileges(2c)2aC of social justice(3c)2aC coincide with what one expects from participating in harmonious social circles?
0111 Wouldn’t that be freaky?
It is like drinking the Flavor-Aid.
0112 These comment bring the arguments in Dr. Gad Saad’s book into a strange revelation.
The reason why Dr. Saad is the target of animosity from colleagues in the postmodern multiversity unites with his chosen topic of expertise, evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology applies lessons about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in to our current Lebenswelt.
In doing so, it raises post-postmodern questions concerning the adaptive natures of human will(1a)2aC, systems(1b)2aC and protection(1c)2aC and their maladaptive expressions in our current Lebenswelt.
Plus, none of these topics can be discussed in the College of Social Construction.
0113 My thanks to Professor Saad for his excellent work.
0114 Our curent Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Cheers for an expanded range of inquiry for evolutionary psychology.
The three masterworks of Razie Mah offer a treasure trove for those interested in human evolution: The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall, and How To Define the Word “Religion”.
These are all available as electronic books. Just search for the author’s name, Razie Mah, along with the title.
0115 A Course on the Human Niche is a series, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, containing the masterwork, a primer, and commentaries, including the following.
Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big
Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of The Mind
Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us?
Comments on Derek Bickerton’s Book (2014) More Than Nature Needs
Any literate adult can conduct a seminar class that reads and discusses these works.
0116 Another series, titled Buttressing the Human Niche, contains comments on articles and books on the topic of human evolution.
Here is a sample.
Comments on David McNeill’s Book (2012) How Language Began
Comments on David Reich’s Book (2018) Who We Are and How We Got Here
Comments on Christ Sinha’s Essay (2018) “Praxis, Symbols and Language”
Comments on Kim Sterelny’s Essay (2011) “From Hominins to Humans”
Comments on John Barrett and Krystalli Amilati’s Essay (2004) “Some Light on the Early Origins of Them All”
Comments on Stella Souvatzi, Adnan Baysal and Emma Baysal’s Essay (2019) “Is there Prehistory?”
These works may be purchased at smashwords and other e-book venues. They explore topics and demonstrate the practice of association and implication. They are ideal for throwing into an established study (or curriculum) on human evolution, in order to demonstrate the realness of triadic relations. Triadic relations are real enough to constitute a niche.
0117 Finally, the Razie Mah’s blog at www.raziemah.com looks at other publications. Each “looking at” blog consists of one to twenty parts. These may be used to spread the word, for enjoyment, discussion and erudition.
For example, the following appears in March 2021
Looking at Daniel Turbon’s Article (2020) “…Human Being in Evolution”
In May 2021
Looking at Chris Sinha’s Essay (2018) “Praxis, Symbol and Language”
0118 Currently, evolutionary psychology is narrowly practiced as an adjunct to cognitive psychology. Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain findings, models and evidence from cognitive psychology in terms of natural selection in the environment of evolutionary adaptation.
Now comes the Course on the Human Niche, Buttressing of the Human Niche, and other productions by Razie Mah,proposing that the ultimate human niche is the potential of triadic relations.
Yes, humans also evolve into very many proximate niches. But, all our proximate niches are bundled together by our ultimate niche. Proximate niches are like the various wooden rods bound together in the ancient Roman artifact called “religio”. This artifact serves as a metaphor for the human’s ultimate niche. Our ultimate niche binds all adaptations into proximate niches together.
0119 Professor Gad Saad’s book takes the reader outside of a narrow and closed practice of evolutionary psychology. However, since Saad does not know the hypothesis of the ultimate human niche, he cannot cross from complaining and demanding action to a wide-open practice of evolutionary psychology. Thus, he cannot fully comprehend what he is encountering in postmodern academics and elsewhere. He is moving towards a realization. It is just around the corner.
A wide-open evolutionary psychology examines our current Lebenswelt through the lens of adaptations accrued in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
That revolution in thought begins with Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche.
0001 Last month, the Razie Mah blog presented the end of Comments on David Graeber and David Wengrow’s Book (2021) “The Dawn of Everything” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues). The blog is titled Looking at Graeber and Wengrow’s Chapter (2021) “The State Has No Origins”.
The question arises, “Does the weird confounded diagram developed in this commentary have relevance to other inquiries covering the human condition in our current Lebenswelt?”
0002 This blog offers an answer, by way of example.
Three years before the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation of Aquarius, Athina Karatzogianni and Andrew Robinson publish an article in the Journal of International Political Theory (2017, Vol. 13(3) 282-295). The British scholars are experts in communication and sociology. Thier article investigates the role of anarchy… er, “anarchy”… in state securitization.
0003 The weird and confounded diagram that appears in the commentary on Graeber and Wengrow’s book looks like this.
Figure 01
The goal of this blog is to briefly review Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article and to demonstrate that a derivation of this figure maps onto the topic.
0004 What is this article about?
The full title is Schizorevolutions versus Microfascisms: The fear of anarchy in state securitisation. Needless to say, the terms are specialized descriptors. But of what?
0005 According to the above figure, academics may confound the state2b with sovereign acts and decrees2bC. The “state”2b is defined. What is defintion? Definition3 is the normal context bringing the actuality of a spoken word2 into relation with the potential of meaning, presence and message1.
The state2b‘ is a term arising from the presence of domination1b‘. But, domination2a must also be defined. The term, “domination”2a, emerges from (and situates) the possibilities inherent in the sole legitimate use of violence (similar to presence)1a’, the administration of information (like meaning)1a and the promotion and guidance of charismatic influence(like message)1a. I call policing, bureaucracy and maintaining reputation, “the three imperatives1a“. The three imperatives1a underlie domination2a.
0006 Here is a picture of the way that Graeber and Wengrow define “state”. This is the path of definition (P).
Figure 02
0007 The way of differentiation is developed in the chapter on presence in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues). Even though the differentiation of an originary, undifferentiated, social world follows the logic of Peirce’s categories, the process is also historic. Since the start of our current Lebenswelt, the societyC, organizationB and individuals in communityA have historically differentiated into three tiers of interscopes. As a result, realization of the two types of religion, corresponding to organizational objects2aC and a relational object2cC, follows the logic of the differentiation of category-based nested forms and occurs in history.
Here is a picture of the three-level interscope for the societyC tier. This is the path of differentiation (Q).
Figure 03
0008 Needless to say, neither Graeber and Wengrow nor Karatzogioanni and Robinson are aware of the the path of differentiation. So, they are not aware that they confound P and Q.
For example, in the introduction, the latter authors suggest that the securitisation discourse (the administration of information, P21a) by the state2b’ arises from the perception of “new threats” (charismatic influence outside of state supervision, P31a) and attempts to fix network flows (through violence, P11a). This also means that the normal context of sovereign power3bC brings the actuality of sovereign acts and decrees2bC into relation with the potential for ‘order’1bC. However, now sovereign power2bC is confounded with definition3b. The state2b is mixed up with sovereign acts and decrees2bC. Plus, ‘domination’1b is entangled with ‘order’1bC.
0009 Here is a picture of how the confounding seems to play out.
Figure 04
0010 Karatzogianni and Robinson immediately go on to say that their argument is based on a distinction between states and networks. Furthermore networks divide into two forms, such as affinity-active and non-affiliating-reactive, as well as between schizoid (non-affiliating active) and paranoic (non-affiliating reactive). Then, they discuss the ramifications in detail.
To me, the distinction between the state2b and its domination2a of organizational objectives2aC of insitutions3aCredefines3b institutions3aC as networks3a. Order1bC melds with efforts to control the content level1b. While “order” sounds legitimate. “Control” does not.
Order1bC establishes peace among instituions3aC working2aC independently based on their own righteousness1aC. Plus, that righteousness1aC does not pay tribute to the perspective level actuality2bC of fear.
Control1b envisions threats emanating from the open space of active desire1aC and aims to moderate these through domination2a (using P1, P2 and P3 of the three imperatives underlying the definition3a of domination2a). Consequently, attempts2b to supervise2b and narrow the space1b of righteousness1aC, sanction2b and outlaw2b objectsorg2aC, and wage war2b on institutions3aC that do not conform to state2b control1b expand into the fabric of everyday life.
0011 The state’s2b acts and decrees2bC are not oriented to protecting civilians or non-state actors. So, the normal context is not sovereignty3bC, but a defining power3b (responsible to a higher loyalty2cC, so to speak). Yet, this defining power3bspeaks the language of sovereignty3bC, just as Graeber and Wengrow do.
0012 But, who is doing the defining here?
Look at the perspective-level actuality2cC.
Fear2cC is not an emotion. Fear2cC is a demiurge, a relational object, an object that brings everyone into relation.
0028 This article appears in the Journal of International Political Theory (2017, vol 13(3), 282-295). So far, my examination describes how the weird confounded diagram developed in the commentary on David Graeber and David Wengrow’s Book (2021) “The Dawn of Everything” is relevant to Karatzogianni and Robinson’s argument. This blog retells the story.
The weird diagram confounds two independent paths of articulation. The path of Graeber and Wengrow is the way of definition (P). After all, they are academics. Academics are devoted to defining their terms. The path of Razie Mah is the way of differentiation (Q). The differentiation of a nested form into the societyC, organizationB and individual in communityA tiers takes place in the chapter on presence in the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”.
Here is a picture of the situation and content levels of definition (P) confounded with the same levels of the societyC tier (Q).
Figure 08
0029 The above diagram does not include the perspectivec level of the societyC tier (Q). Karatzogianni and Robinson open by describing the securitisation state as exploiting and promoting an atmosphere of fear. Fear is the object that brings everyone into relation2cC.
Consequently, this confounding (P and Q) is put into perspective by a demiurge2cC, an entity standing above sovereign power, and this demiurge2cC defines the state2b.
Figure 09
0030 This configuration produces a split in the content level of defined3a institutions2aC.
Figure 10
Some institutions3b’ attempt to work with the state2b. These conforming institutions3b’ bring sanctioned organizational objects2b’ into relation with the potential1b’ of the three imperatives of domination1c’ as well as the institution’s original righteousness1b. This is useful for the state2c’, which relies on conforming institutions3b’ to situate institutions3a’ that (for whatever reason) cannot or will not conform.
Conforming institutions3b’ perform microfascist activities for the state2c’, increasing the possibility of state control1c’through forcing choices, limiting and misleading information, as well as protecting reputations. These activities are built into sanctioned organizational objectives2b’ that presumably emerge from (and situate) the potential of the institution’s original righteousness1b’. According to my reading this article, Karatzogianni and Robinson do not clearly ideate this side of the splitting.
Other institutions are downgraded (often, by state interference) into networks3a’. Nonconforming networks3a’ bring unsactioned organizational objectives2a’ into relation with the potential of ‘unsupervised righteousness’1a’. Conforming institutions3b’ are ofted viewed by the anarchy level as state apparatuses3b’ whose organizational objectives2b’ are compromised by the fact they follow the rules, even when not necessary, lie and cover up1b’.
0031 How do nonconforming networks3a’ respond?
Not as the state2c’ would like them do. The state2c’ now occupies the perspective level of an interscope that expresses the path of definition. Remember, the perspective level typically comes into play on;y when there is a failure on the situation level. In other words, the perspective level is taken for granted, until something goes wrong.
Here is the interscope of securitisation2cC.
Figure 11
0032 Once again, what about the response of noncomforming networks3a’ on the anarchy level?
Unsupervised righteousness1a’ inspires organization objectives2a’ that appear schizophrenic (they are listening to the voices in thier heads instead of the state) or paranoid (they think that the state is the one to fear, rather than the demiurge that defines the state). Consequently, the two actors of importance in Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article belong to the state and the anarchy levels.
0033 So, what is lacking in this article?
Situation-level institutionsb’ end up being drained of their original righteousness1b’ due to their compromise with the defining power3c’. Conforming institutions3b’ lose respectability by enforcing the three imperatives that underlie the word, “domination”1b’. Conforming institutions3b’ lose respectablity by sacrificing their original righteousness1b’ in the process of enforcing the three imperatives1b’. Yet, conforming institutions3b’ maintain respectablility by being the only ones whose organizational objectives2b’ are sanctioned by state decree2c’ and therefore less likely to suffer capricious state action2c’.
0034 It makes me wonder what the word, “respectable”, really means.
The sociological and psychological dynamics of the compliant level are ripe for exploration.
Coloration tells the story.
Figure 12
0035 So much for the political theory aspect of Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article, what about the “international” aspect?
After all, the article appears in the Journal of International Political Theory.
Well, in the introduction and the conclusion, the authors speculate that the security state may be a response to the anarchy generated by… or may be a strategy to control the wealth and innovations produced by… or may aim to wrest control from…
… global capitalism.
Which makes me wonder, “Could global capitalism be a demiurge, just like securitisation?”
If so, then Graeber and Wengrow’s weird confounding diagram is relevant.
And, the prior steps should apply to the following perspective-level nested form.
Figure 13
0036 The rest is left as an exercise for the intrepid inquirer.
