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 Biologist Daryl P. Domning and theologian Monika K. Hellwig collaborate in a work, entitled, Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution. Domning professionally studies the evolution of sirenians, sea cows, while maintaining an interest in Catholic theology. The sea cows, like the whales and the seals, are land mammals that adapted to an aquatic environment… or should I say?… niche.
0002 In terms of human imagination, sea cows associate to mermaids. Mermaids are chimeric. They are half woman and half fish.
0003 The titular word, “selfishness”, is chimeric as well. It starts in Germany as an emphatic, added to a pronoun (A). For example, I can say, “I myself” or “you yourself” or “he himself” or “she herself” and so on. Then, in Old English, the emphatic coalesces into a noun, “self” (B). Then, the noun becomes an adjective with an added,”-ish” (C). “Selfish” denotes an emphasis on self by self. Then, the adjective converts back into a noun with an added “-ness” (D). Selfishness (D) is the state of being selfish (C).
0004 So, there is an evolution to the word, “selfishness”, as well.
What games we play with words.
It makes me wonder whether the evolution of this spoken word has anything to do with evil in the light of evolution.
0005 If I change the mode of talk to hand-talk, I may say POINT TO MYSELF. I may not say I POINT TO MYSELF, because the pronoun, I, is signified by pointing to myself. I may gesture, POINT TO MYSELF twice, or with dramatic flair, but that is not equivalent to the spoken word, “self” (B) or “selfish” (C). It may be equivalent to the emphatic, “I, myself” (A).
0006 If language evolves in the milieu of hand talk, then our distant ancestors do not hand talk the equivalent of the spoken words, “self”, “selfish” or “selfishness”.
Does this fact provide a clue to original sin in light of evolution?
At least, it provides a clue to a divide in the course of human evolution.
The emphatic, I-myself (A), associates to hand talk and the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The explicit abstractions of self (B), selfish (C) and selfishness (D) associate to speech-alone talk and our current Lebenswelt.
0007 Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
In 2006 (and perhaps, anytime before Domning reads this), the author does not suspect that there may be a twist in human evolution. In general, evolutionary biologists have no idea. Like Domning, they are focused on genetics and natural history, not cultural turns. The hypothesis of the first singularity first appears in 2012 with the masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall, available at smashwords and other e-book vendors.
0021 Domning’s move is clever, except for a critical implication. There is a sequence of adaptations within the Homo lineage that follows and builds on the primal adaptation into the niche of natural selection and genetics. So, the universal aspect of Original Sin, dealing with descent from a progenitor, and the moral reality of Original Sin, concerning the disordered expression of original selfishness in humans, are not fully separate.
Domning offers a graphic.
Here is my re-enactment of figure 10.1.
Figure 06
0022 Original selfishness does not implicate moral deliberation. Human selfishness does.
0023 What is “X”?
Domning places the word, “evolution”, here.
I ask, “How can this be?”
How can natural selection eventually yield human free will… er… selfish human free will?
Is selfish human free will an adaptation?
How does the Homo lineage pass from instinctive behaviors to deliberate choices?
0024 I suppose that Domning covers this challenge in chapter nine, titled, “Evolution and human ethics”.
What does he say?
Evolutionary selfishness is one thing, corresponding to adaptation into a niche of natural selection and genetics. Psychological selfishness is a second thing, corresponding to “original selfishness”. Psychological selfishness that intentionally disregards the interests of others is a third thing, corresponding to “human selfishness”.
So, X describes the evolution of psychological states. Selfish human free will, the foundation of human selfishness, evolves from original selfishness.
0025 However, I already am inclined to think that there must be another step, the evolution of self, that enters into the picture. Why? If human free will is to be selfish, then there must already be a self.
Here is a picture.
Figure 07
0026 Isn’t that curious?
The four waystations in the historic development of the word, “selfishness”, recapitulates the evolutionary sequence from “original selfishness” to “human selfishness”.
Okay, I immediately wonder, is there another word that also parallels some sort of evolutionary progression, from noun to adjective then back to noun?
Yes, there is.
0027 The term is “concupiscence”.
Concupiscence is a technical term used in theological discussions of the doctrine of Original Sin. It may be derived from Latin roots in more than one fashion.
Here is a picture.
Figure 08
0028 Of course, my preferred derivation is the lower option. To me, “concupiscence” is the state of being with Cupid. Cupid is an implicit abstraction from two features of natural selection: cooperation (Venus) and competition (Mars).
What do I mean by the term, “implicit abstraction”?
In some way, Cupid may be stated in hand talk, in the same fashion that Cupid is portrayed in visual art. PANTOMINE DRAWING A BOW, PANTOMIME ARROW FLYING, POINT TO MY OWN HEART. This fully linguistic statement in hand talk does not make sense, at first. Later, it does.
Cupid is the self, in the presence of other selves.
Cupid shoots arrows of desire, in the presence of other selves.
0029 I ask, “How could hominin awareness of the counterintuitive nature of Cupid evolve?”
This question does not surface in Domning’s chapter on evolution and human ethics.
Ethics among animals is mediated through ritual and emotion. The rules of the game say that cooperation may be necessary for surviving to the next competition.
In contrast, human ethics transcends an animal’s sensible and amoral tendencies. Human ethics demands social construction. Social construction is addressed in the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0030 In chapter nine, on evolution and human ethics, Domning envisions a short step from an amoral psychology (original selfishness) to a moral psychology associated with Original Sin (human selfishness). All that is required is the evolution of creatures capable of self-reflection.
Is that the same as the evolution of self?
Or, is that the evolution of cupid, the self in the presence of others?
Uh oh, the term, “cupid”, now has a technical definition.
0031 Is our capacity for self-reflection an adaptation into an ultimate niche or is it an evolutionary spandrel, an architectural feature of adaptations into diverse proximate niches?
Domning suggests the latter, by noting that intelligence is a composite of a wide variety of faculties, many of which are contradictory. Trade-offs favor a psychological ambivalence, which looks more and more like free will.
Does this imply that human free will arises from a diversity of “original selfishnesses”, each specific to a dilemma in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, psychologically expressed as behaviors consistent with the emphatic, I-myself?
So, the “self” seems to be a spandrel, where all these architectural (and archetypal) psychologies come together to form something, that ends up labeled as “self”.
0032 Remember this one?
Figure 09
0033 Item A entails no moral deliberation.
Item D involves moral deliberation.
0034 Item B, the consolidation of psychological expressions of I-myself into a single entity, the self, does not entail moral deliberation.
Item C, the tendency to put one’s own interests above other interests in the exercise of human free will, implicates moral deliberation.
0035 Now, I would like to substitute my newly minted technical term, “cupid” (B’), in for “self” (B) and see what happens.
Figure 10
0036 Right off, the nature of “cupid” as an adaptation accounts for the spandrel-like “self”. Its niche entails some sort of judgment (a triadic relation) in which the self is socially constructed out of a variety of psychological expressions of I-myself.
Here is the key.
Psychologically, self-interest is composed in response to other selves. Cupid is the self becoming aware of its own self-interests in a social world where others exhibit their own interests through psychological expressions of I-myself. In order to consolidate my self, from my own expressions of I-myself, I must consolidate the selves of others, from their own expressions of I-myself.
In brief, the self (B) does not arise in a vacuum. Cupid (B’) designates that fact.
0044 The development of the word, “concupiscence” (D’), from the originating emphatic, I-myself (A), produces technical definitions of words, that are at odds with traditional definitions. Cupid (B’) starts by labeling the presence of self among other selves.
Figure 12
Cupid (B’) associates to self (B). If self (B) labels the intensional awareness of an internal consolidation of various, situational I-myselves, then cupid(B’) labels an extension of that awareness. This extension occurs, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, as individuals cooperate in social circles, the family (5), intimates (5), teams (15), bands (50), communities (150) and so on. So, the consolidation that produces the self (B’) is motivated by a competition to perform as a self among other selves in various social circles.
That competition entails concupiditas (C’), the desire to perform as a self among other selves. Concupiditas (C’) corresponds to selfish (C). Concupiditas (C’) is an adaptation that satisfies the biological criteria of evolutionary selfishness and conforms to Domning’s criteria for original selfishness, manifested in the emphatic, I-myself (A).
0045 Here is a picture.
Figure 13
0046 Like cupid (B’), the technical term, concupiditas (C’), does not align with common parlance.
A contemporary example of a concupidic behavior (C’) takes place in bars and houses around college campuses. Drinking games meld competition and cooperation. Each participant is a cupid (B’), competing to shoot an arrow into a keg of beer, in order to endear oneself to others in the drinking group.
One must compete in order to cooperate?
How twisted is that?
0047 Concupiditas (C’) is situational. Concupiditas entails human choice. Concupiditas introduces rules to the game. Concupiditas is being with others, in particular situations, where performance is congruent with belonging.
The rule of the drinking game is simple. Drink as much beer as you can. This rule is given precedence over other rules, such as long-term cooperation necessitates that other selves are not injured. The drinking game entails risk. Concupiditas (C’) entails a human choice about which game to play. The games belong to concupiscence (D’). The choice belongs to the person and concupiditas (C’).
0048 Concupiscence (D’) corresponds to selfishness (D). One must compete to cooperate. One must perform in every social circle that one belongs to. That performance entails risk. Sometimes one is born into a social circle (the family, band and community). Sometimes one must choose (intimates, team). Concupiscence (D’) is the state of competing to cooperate. Each self desires to cooperate, because those who cooperate take the greater risks and enjoy the greater benefits. Each self desires to be among other selves. Each self has its own original selfishness. Every game and every social circle has rules, established by tradition.
Figure 14
We compete to belong to and to flourish within social circles. We compete to cooperate.
0049 In the competition to cooperate (D’), one must have theories of mind. One must be able to anticipate the desire to belong (concupiditas, C’) of others. One must fashion the selves of oneself and others (B’) through clues, including the expression of emphatics, such as I-myself, in various situations (A).
Figure 15
0050 In the end, a deep irony emerges.
These alternate technical formulations of cupid (B’), concupiditas (C’), and concupiscence(D’) describe original justice, not original sin. In other words, the niche of triadic relations allows forms of cooperation (associated to the goddess Venus) that are so rewarding that original selfishness drives us to compete (associated to the god Mars) in order to participate and flourish in cooperative social circles.
Does the term, “original justice”, describe the state of humans in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
Concupiscence (D’) is so adaptive that we evolved a willingness to sacrifice, even die, for one another.
0051 The most productivity-oriented social circle is the team. Being a member of a successful team increases self-preservation and reproductive success. Teams are task oriented, voluntary, opportunistic and spontaneous. Teams are most effective in scavenging resources in mixed forest and savannah, where opportunities are seasonal and varied. Teams are so successful that they share their bounties with family, band and community. Hand talk is an adaptation to team activity.
So, why do I say that the human niche is triadic relations, rather than cooperation?
0052 Cooperation and competition already are adaptations into the niche of evolutionary selfishness. Domning is clear on this. Original selfishness is a psychological adaptation that spontaneously expresses one’s presence. That psychological adaptation opens the door to the realization of self. That realization is not a thing. It is a triadic relation.
Is this way the technical definition of cupid (B’), proposed here, is precisely the opposite of the thing known in Greek mythology as Cupid, who is not a relation at all.
