0024 Here is a picture of Hodder’s general theory of entanglement.

0025 Here is a diagram of the relational structure of biological adaptation.

0026 Notice any similarities?

Does this summarize Hodder’s book?

Yes, it does, because Hodder, as a scientist, limits his vision to sensible construction.

No, it does not, because the two diagrams are different, even though they appear remarkably similar.

0027 There are two actualities.

Things_2a occupy the slot for actuality_2a in the content-level of both two-level interscopes.

The ways that people use things and take care of them_2b occupies the slot for actuality_2b on the situation-level, for the normal context of entanglement_3b.

Biological adaptations_2b occupies the slot for actuallity_2b on the situation level, for the normal context of natural selection_2b.

0028 What does that imply?

The logics of normal contexts₃ include exclusion, complementarity and alignment.  I can rule out the first and the third options, leaving me with the second.

Entanglement_2b complements natural selection_2b.

Similarly, the potential ‘uses of things’_1b complements the biological concept of niche_1b.

0029 Where are we heading?

Are we heading to the realization that people’s use of things, as well as their care for things_2b, complements the biological notion of adaptation_2b?

Are we are heading to an awareness that what Hodder calls “entanglement”_3b may be an adaptation_2b into the human niche_1b?

If the answers are “yes”, then perhaps the concept of biological adaptation_2b relies on (and is therefore, formatted by) our innate capacity for using and caring for things_2b.

0030 Does Darwin pick up on that?

What do natural selection and selective breeding by humans have in common?