08/4/23

Looking at Glenn Diesen’s Book (2019) “The Decay … And Resurgence…” (Part 20 of 21)

0166 Does Diesen’s Greimas square work allow the inquirer to imagine civilisational cycles preceding the most recent cycle?

What civilisations are around before the civilisational cycle of political pluralism?

Here is a picture of the current cycle.

Note how the time scale has changed from Anno Domini to Ubaid Zero Prime.

0 U0′ roughly corresponds to the consolidation of the Ubaid culture in southern Mesopotamia.

7823 years ago, the Ubaid is the only culture practicing speech-alone talk and all surrounding Neolithic cultures rely on hand-speech talk (the way of talking since the first anatomically modern humans).

According to Razie Mah’s masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall, the adoption of speech-alone talk potentiates unconstrained social complexity.

What does that imply?

Civilisational cycles commence with the first singularity.

0167 If the recent cycle in Western civilisation is any indication of timing, cycles tend to complete every 400 or 500 years.

Weirdly, such timing corresponds to the progressions of Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions through any three consecutive zodiac signs. Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions occur roughly every 20 years. Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions in any given sign occur every 60 years, with each conjunction advancing around 13 degrees. So, a conjunction at, say 0 degrees Aquarius, in 2020, will occur in Aquarius again in 2080, at 13 degrees, then in 2140, at around 26 degrees, then in Pisces around 10 degrees in 2200, then at 23 degrees Pisces in 2260, then in 6 degrees Aries in 2320, 19 degrees Aries in 2380 and around 1 degree Taurus in 2440.

Say what?

Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions start in Aquarius in 2020 and leave Aries, three signs later, around 2440. That is 420 years.

Well, the idea is weird for moderns, but for the ancients, the celestial sphere works like a clock. I may call that clock, “the celestial Earth”. I may also call it, “the celestial half of Tiamat”.

0168 With this in mind, consider Diesen’s recollection of a written origin story of the ancient Near East (located in chapter 2, see points 0041-0060).

As a thought experiment, let me propose that this story covers the second civilizational cycle of an archaeological period in Mesopotamia, occupying a time frame similar to Western civilisation’s seasons of sovereignty, but shifted back 7400 years.

0169 Here is a list of seasons for A, the civilisational manifestation.

0170 Why the second cycle?

0171 Absu (B), the father and order, is already separated, as gesellschaft, from Tiamat (D), the mother and chaos, who is the theme of the cycle. To me, this implies that the story tells of a second cycle, occurring in a hand-speech talking culture outside of the Ubaid, after it adopts speech-alone talk in imitation of the Ubaids.

0172 The Ubaid forms on the edges of the newly-filled Persian Gulf. The Ubaid practices a speech-alone talking creole. They speak (what we will later call) the Sumerian language, which is not related to any family of languages. Adjacent hand-speech talking cultures are influenced by the increasing wealth (labor specialization) and power (social specialization) of their speech-alone talking neighbor.

0173 In order to imitate the Ubaid culture, neighboring Neolithic folk drop the hand-talk component of their hand-speech talk. The timeless shamans resist. Yet, certain factions insist on not using their hands anymore while talking. These factions are able to identify, in speech, certain terms that cannot be performed in hand talk. They identify Absu, the father, who compares favorably with the increasingly underperforming shamans. Well, the shamans underperform only when compared to the Ubaid, who trade mats, woven from reeds, for permission to chop down the trees in the area.

By the end of the first cycle, the culture living in the shadow of the Ubaid differentiates Absu (B) as gesellschaft and Tiamat (D), not as gemeinschaft, but as the theme, chaos. What happened? Well, the timeless shamans, who try to warn the folk and impede the adoption of speech-alone talk, are gone. Everyone now practices speech-alone talk, in the family of (what we now call) the Semitic languages.

0174 In the spring of the second cycle, the manifestation of chaos (A) makes no impression. Absu (the gesellschaft that destroyed the shamans, B) and Tiamat (the chaos once represented by the shamans, D) produce offspring (specialized groups within the folk, gemeinschaft (C) arising from gesellschaft (B)). All this is made possible by the semiotics of speech-alone talk.

0175 In the summer of the second cycle, the offspring (various gemeinschafts (C) that increasingly fail to recognize Absu (B) as legitimate) murder Absu (B) and build a party-house on his grave (A). I call it a “party house” because every chamber of the house has its own special attractions, its own special way of gossiping about everyone else, and its own exclusivity. The chaos (D), attributed to the deceased shamans, slumbers as the different echo-chambers (C) talk about how they are going to do this or that (B). All the gemeinschafts (C) conspire to promote their own gesellschafts (B) above the one who can never return to life, the murdered Absu.

0176 In the autumn of the second cycle, the echo-chambers (B and C) are increasingly at odds with one another. The squabbling and politicking stirs Tiamat from her slumber (D). Politics with hand-speech talk was never as loud or as noisy as the jabbering and the posturing in speech-alone talk. The folk are disordered, disunited and dismayed.

From within the gemeinschaft (C), a movement is afoot, saying, “Let us return to the ways of the timeless shamans.” But, there is a problem. There is no way to return to the ways before speech-alone talk because all the timeless shamans are dead. They have been dead for many conjunctions of the slowest of the wandering stars. How can we, the gemeinschaft, call them back from the…

Oh! What about Kino? Kino can channel the chaos of Tiamat. Kino can create a new world powered by the newly awakened Tiamat!

Who will respond to that monster, Kino, the one that all the echo-chambers are worried about?

All the little gods of the already shaken party palace search for a hero, a gesellschaft, capable of re-establishing their prerogatives.

0177 In the winter of the second cycle, a hero for diverse gesellschaft steps forward and does battle with Kino. In the year of 823 U0′, no one knows who will win.

0178 Today, while reading a handful of cuneiform tablets recovered from the ruins of an ancient library, we know.

Marduk wins. Marduk establishes the pantheon, the gesellschaft (B) that conquers chaos (D).

Plus, Kino’s defeat is significant to us. From the blood of the ruined Kino (C), Marduk (B) makes humans. Marduk fashions us from the blood of a gemeinschaft trying to return to the original justice of the timeless shamans.

Plus, Tiamat’s final fate is significant to all creation. From the corpse of the conquered Tiamat (D), Marduk fashions the sky-bearing face of the celestial Earth and the earth-bearing face of the mundane Earth. The heavens and the earth, the celestial Earth and mundane Earth, look upon one another through the realm in which Marduk rules. Marduk rules between heaven and earth.

0179 Here are the four seasons of the imagined second cycle, for a semitic-language-speaking culture neighboring the Ubaid, which is absorbed into the Uruk, before the Sumerian Dynastic.

The story that Diesen recounts remembers what cannot be remembered, that is, the tempestuous story of how we came to be.

Here is a list for gemeinschaft (C).

08/3/23

Looking at Glenn Diesen’s Book (2019) “The Decay … And Resurgence…” (Part 21 of 21)

0180 Postmodernists recoil from grand narratives.

Yet, they embrace parlor games.

Perhaps, for their amusement, they may consider contemporary figures as stand-ins for the theodrama of the second civilisational cycle just imagined.

Or, they may ridicule the concept of a Plutonic year or the relevance of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions as a clock on the Celestial Earth.

In their distraction, they ignore the grand narratives that Diesen’s time-honoring Greimas square potentiate.

Isn’t imagination what we need?

0181 In several points in this book, Diesen says that the Russian… well… even more broadly… the Eurasian resurgence needs an ideological vision that organizes gesellschaft. The same statement-of-need is found other books on contemporary international politics.

In Comments on Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) “2045 Global Projects At War” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues), the commentary concludes with a sequence of interscopes that prepare a vision for the Chinese Datun, the conclusion of and the start of an opening of the Celestial Heavens (occurring in the years 2044 and 2045, respectively). This 2250 year cycle ties back to the passage of the first singularity through eastern Eurasia (now China), sometime after 1000 U0′.

The passage of the first singularity into northern Eurasia (now Russia) occurs around the same time, seeding the Kurgan culture, who tames horses and runs on wagons. Later, these migrating chiefdoms flood into western Europe and northern India in an exercise in elite dominance. The event is called “the Indo-European language expansion”.

The passage of the first singularity into western Eurasia winds through the Aegean, giving rise to late copper and bronze age civilizations. Do monuments such as Stonehenge signify the last efflorescence of hand-speech talking cultures or the adoption of speech-alone talk?

The passage of the first singularity into the Indian subcontinent initiates the settlement of the Indus floodplain, giving rise to the Harappan civilization.

The passage of the first singularity through Persia, directly east of Mesopotamia, occurs much earlier, seeding the Susa culture, which rises and then is overwhelmed by the neighboring Uruk culture. Doesn’t that sound like an original imprint for Iran, located at the crossroads of Eurasia?

0182 What am I saying?

I am interested in civilization. The persistent question that arises in Razie Mah’s masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall,is, “What potentiates civilisation?”

0183 The answer is the hypothesis of the first singularity.

This hypothesis calls for creative, interdisciplinary and altogether fantastic anthropological and archaeological inquiry into the potentiation of civilization throughout Eurasia (as well as the Americas).

What a research project!

Eurasia is home to the first civilisations, as well as early language expansions, such as the Indo-European and the Austronesian.

Eurasia is currently home to many distinct civilisations which, like Russia, are about to enter a new spring of sovereignty, as the summer of geoeconomics ends with the demise of the world’s reserve currency, shorter (and perhaps more expensive, but definitely more reliable) supply chains and respect for borders.

0184 Glenn Diesen is on target, in calling for a novel ideology, supporting neopragmatist approaches.

A research project based on the hypothesis of the first singularity responds to that call.

Likewise, Alexander Dugin is on target by envisioning a fourth political theory that is not a theory at all, but a pragmatic and tradition-cultivating being there. Dasein!

To me, nothing conveys Dasein, better than the realization that our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Both Diesen and Dugin, in their own ways, call for a new imagination, one that addresses the gesellschafts of all Eurasian civilizations with a series of questions, asking, “Where does the world come from? Where do humans come from? What went wrong? What is the solution?”

0185 Today, the natural and social sciences of the West are accepted by all the Eurasian civilisations, not as absolute truths, but as methods of inquiry. They set the stage for the mind-boggling hypothesis of the first singularity. But, because of their materialist and instrumental inclinations, they never proposed the obvious. The human niche is not a material or instrumental condition.

The first tool of the intellect for our species, Homo sapiens, is hand-speech talk.

The second tool of the intellect for our species is speech-alone talk.

Ten thousand years ago, all Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures practice hand-speech talk.

Today, all civilizations practice speech-alone talk.

The transition from the Lebenswelt that we evolved in to our current Lebenswelt is called the first singularity.

The first singularity begins with the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia and spreads on the wings of mimicry.

0185 Keep that research project in mind.

Razie Mah offers, in his blog on the date of Oct 1, 2022, “A Fantasia in G minor: A Speech Written for Gunnar Beck, MEP”. The “G” stands for Germany. The “minor” stands for its location in the grand expanse of Eurasia. The speech is intended to be read in the European Parliament, currently an expression of BG(il)Lism and vassal of… chuckle… American Judeo-Pagans. But, in this speech, the Parliament is the stage for the declaration of something more important than the identity of the hidden operators behind the destruction of gas pipelines running beneath the Baltic Sea. Gunnar Beck needs only to stand up and give a 15 minute speech that calls for an act of imagination.

0186 My thanks to Glenn Diesen for his interesting and provocative book. I pray for his continued work in these challenging fields of inquiry.

07/31/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 1 of 16)

0001 Lesley Newson and Peter J. Richerson research human evolution at the University of California, Davis. Richerson is an early proponent of culture-gene co-evolution, back in the 1980s. Since 2000, Newson tries to apply evolutionary theory to current rapid historical changes.

Perhaps, the first five chapters should be read with Richerson’s voice and the last three with Newson’s. Also, various interludes, colored with a gray background, should be read with Newson’s voice. These interludes contain acts of imagination.

0002 Acts of imagination?

In a book on human evolution?

What a surprise.

0003 To me, stylistic innovation is welcome. Imagination is called for. Razie Mah opens the curtains on the hypothesis of the first singularity with a work of imagination, titled, An Archaeology of the Fall.

0004 What about substance, in addition to style?

The full title of Newson and Richerson’s book is The Story of Us: A New Look at Human Evolution (Oxford University Press, New York). The new look is stylistic, not substantive. Indeed, much of this examination will entail a comparison of this text to a work of substantive innovation: Razie Mah’s The Human Niche, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

The Human Niche builds on four commentaries, also available for purchase.

Here is a list.

Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big

Comments on Derek Bickerton’s Book (2014) More than Nature Needs

Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us?

Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of Mind

0005 These commentaries, along with the masterwork, The Human Niche, and A Primer on Natural Signs compose the series, A Course on The Human Niche.

0006 What does this imply?

At the time of their writing, these authors are not aware of the substantive hypothesis contained in The Human Niche.

In reference 2 of chapter one of Newson and Richerson’s book, the authors list a dozen books, none of which are listed above. This implies that Newson and Richerson, like so many of us, live and study in a cognitive bubble.

Their book is not a substantive new look at human evolution. Rather, it is a new look in terms of style, compared to the books on their list in reference 2 of chapter one.

07/28/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 2 of 16)

0007 Newson and Richerson start their inquiry by asking, “What is it to be human?”

Does a scientific understanding of how our species evolved shed light on the question?

Scientists hope so. Recently, torrents of new information about human evolution has been coming from geneticists and natural historians, including researchers interested in understanding the adaptive natures of women and children. What were they up to during the past two million years?

Well, among other things, they were harnessing males to help them survive. Surely, the family is evolutionarily ancient. Plus, it complements mother-infant bonding.

0008 The new information does not further the notion of a gene-defined or an environment-based human nature. For example, neither genes nor environment do good jobs in predicting how children will turn out. One child may be resilient. One child may be delicate. Nevertheless, there are some consistencies. Children connect to mom and dad. Children connect to (and compete with) their siblings. In short, children belong in a family.

0009 What may seem strange to say, at this moment, is that the family (among other things) is a purely relational structure that can be diagrammed using the category-based nested form. Examples are found in A Primer on The Familyand The First and Second Primers on the Organization Tier, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0010 Imagine that.

Our genus adapts to the opportunities and dangers offered by purely relational structures.

As soon as one imagines the possibility, one recalls a story. Stories are tools for thinking about what might have happened in our evolutionary history. Archaeological evidence does not tell a story. Rather, evidence renders certain stories as plausible and others as implausible. So, the anthropologist’s task is to fashion a plausible story. In this book, the gray-colored interludes attempt to present plausible tales.

0011 How can one fashion a plausible story with archeological evidence at hand?

Evidence serves as real, tangible actualities₂ that inquirers can place into the normal context of archaeology₃ and over the potential of ‘something relevant’₁.

What is relevant?

Well, a plausible story about us fits the bill.

If I follow the method in Razie Mah’s A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, I arrive at the following.

0012 Well, what about genetics?

Aren’t torrents of information about human evolution coming from genetics as well as natural history?

Okay, allow me to expand the picture.

07/27/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 3 of 16)

0013 The normal context of evolution₃ brings the actuality of genetics [and] archaeological evidence₂ into relation with the potential of ‘a story about us (humans)’₁.

What is going on with the “and” in brackets?

Actuality is the realm. Secondness is the category. Secondness contains two contiguous real elements. These two elements are subject to the logics of contradiction and non-contradiction. This is the logic that we typically think about when we hear the word, “logic”. If an actuality is logical, the two real elements should agree, or at least, not disagree, and if they do disagree, we should be able to figure out the precise manner in which the disagreement occurs.

Here, the two real elements are genetics and archaeological evidence. I place the contiguity in brackets. Here, the contiguity is [and]. [And] is not exactly an evocative contiguity. But, in earlier days, Richerson frames another term for [and]. The term is “co-evolves”. Genes and culture coevolve.

0014 The result is two similar hylomorphic structures.

0015 Both belong to the realm of actuality₂ in the normal context of evolution₃. Both arise from the potential of ‘stories about us (humans)’₁.

0016 In order to drive home where the evolution₃ of our genus has brought us, the authors relate the story of Jemmy Button, a native of Tierra de Fuego in South America, who was captured (as a child) and brought to England, then grew up in England before returning to his native land (as an adult). What a tale! Jemmy grew accustomed to both cultures, implying that each one of us has a tremendous potential for cultural plasticity.

0017 It makes me wonder about the contiguity, [co-evolve].

Clearly, human DNA codes for brains of great plasticity, in addition to function, and this allows culture to inform our brains. Jemmy Button could function as an Englishman and a native of Tierra de Fuego. But, he has only one brain.

0018 This implies that I can expand on the previous category-based nested form in the following manner.

Instead of the normal context of evolution₃, I can think in terms of the phenotype of brains (on a content level) that is situated by the adaptability of the same brains (on a situation level). I imagine two normal contexts. Body development_3ais the normal context₃ of the content_a level. Sociality_2b is the normal context₃ for the situation_b level. So, sociality_3avirtually situates body development_3a.

For actuality, originally culture [co-evolves with] genes. Now, [co-evolves] corresponds to a relation between the situation and content levels. On the content level, genes become the dyad: DNA [codes for] brains_2a. On the situation level, culture becomes a dyad: culture [informs] brains_2b. Notably, in chapter one, Newson and Richerson describe culture as “shared information”.

For potential, originally the potential is ‘something relevant’₁, which becomes ‘stories about us’₁. Now, ‘stories about us’₁becomes a content-level ‘function or plasticity’_1a and a situation-level ‘situating content’_1b.

0019 Here is a two-level interscope. Interscopes are introduced in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0020 Now I can ask, “What exactly goes into the slot for potential₁ on the situation_b level? What is ‘situating content’_1b?”

Towards the end of chapter one, the authors are clear. Their book intends to tell how our ancestors managed to harness culture_2b.

I wonder, “Aren’t they putting the cart (of culture_2b) in front of the horse (of ‘situating content’_1b)?”

07/26/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 4 of 16)

0021 The authors’ focus on actuality₂, rather than potential₁, is typical for modern sciences.

There is an alternative to the two-level interscope for gene-culture co-evolution. The alternative has the same situation-level nested form, but a different content level.

To start, genes_2a are a content-level actuality_2a, corresponding to DNA [codes for] brains_2a. Culture [informs] brains_2b is a situation-level actuality_2b that emerges from… um… the potential ‘situating content’_1b. But, does that situation-level potential_1b virtually emerge from (and situate) the potential of brain function or plasticity_1a? Or, does it_1b virtually situate another potential, such as the potential of ‘whatever is happening at the time’_1a?

0023 Is there a hidden ingredient to gene-culture co-evolution?

That hidden ingredient is expressed on the content level of the following two-level interscope.

0024 Now, this hidden ingredient must be very important for the “sauce” of the story that Newson and Richerson tells.

It is as if culture informs brains_2b allows the creature to fill in the blanks on the content level.

0025 But, I suppose before our lineage has big brains, then that content level is not culture oriented. Something much more… um… primal tells the story.

If I go back to a common ancestor between the chimpanzees and our lineage, say seven million years ago, then that obvious actuality_2a involves a behavior common to all mammals.

Chapter two begins with an interlude, a story about mother-infant “culture”. When the infant drinks its mother’s milk_2a, the mother-infant interaction stimulates hormonal responses_2b.

0026 Here is the hidden ingredient two-level interscope for mother-infant interactions.

0027 If the situation-level normal context is sociality_3b, then the potential of situating content_1b could be called, by psychologists, the possibility of ‘an mother-infant bond’_1b.

0028 Mother-infant bonding_1b situates the physical act of the infant suckling_2a, which is innate for mammals. So, the content level for the hidden ingredient dovetails into the content level for gene-culture co-evolution.

0029 The normal context of suckling_3a can be viewed as a facet of body development_3a.

The infant’s behavior_2a must be genetic_2a, since an infant is too young to culturally figure out anything.

The innate physical act_1a has a function_1a, so plasticity offers no advantage.

0030 What does this imply?

The secret message of the hidden ingredient of the “gene” side of gene-culture co-evolution is that our brains have the potential to construct the hidden ingredient. A content level_2a obviously must be going on when content is situated_1b in the normal context of sociality_3b. So, the potential of function or plasticity_1a corresponds to the (innately gifted) ability of the individual to isolate the potential of ‘whatever is happening at the time’_1a, as well as the normal context_3a and the actuality_2a of the hidden ingredient.

0031 How complicated is that?

There is a huge advantage to Newson and Richerson’s theoretical sleight of hand. The situation-level actuality_2b arising from mother-infant bonding_1b has the same hylomorphic structure (of two contiguous real elements) as culture [informs] brains_2b. Indeed, one may say that these two dyads are the polar ends of a continuum of behaviors that rely on pure function (for stimulation) at one end and pure plasticity (for information) on the other.

0032 Finally, the authors complete their picture by claiming that the emotional attachment_1b increases reproductive success_1c.

The problem?

The potential for ‘reproductive success’_1c is necessary, but not sufficient, to explain the actuality of an adaptation_2c. A niche₁ is required to honestly account for any particular adaptation₂ in the normal context of natural selection₃. However, the authors are not aware that humans have a niche or that the human niche may have anything to do with the hidden ingredient composing a content-level nested form that does not appear in their theoretical framework.

0033 Here is a picture of the authors’ big picture, applied to the last common ancestor of the chimpanzee and human.

07/25/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 5 of 16)

0034 To review.

The situation level of the following diagram addresses “adaptation”. The content level concerns “phenotype. This two-level interscope touches base with the authors’ biological expertise.

The above interscope veils a more intuitive content level, where the normal context is what is happening_3a, the actuality is some sort of activity_2a and the potential is that ‘something’ is happening_1a.

Finally, depending on the content level, there are two situation-level actualities_2b available.

The first concerns signals. The second entails signs.

0035 Is there another way to diagram evolution?

One answer is that adaptation₂ and phenotype₂ are actualities in two nested forms. Together, they constitute an intersection, defined as an actuality₂ composed of two actualities.

For roads, an intersection is where two roads meet. It is a single actuality constituted by two actualities. On top of that, it is full of contradictions, hence the necessity of traffic regulations.

The intersection of adaptation₂ and phenotype₂ is no different. Each arises from a distinct potential. That potential situates a content-level actuality.

0036 Here is the natural history side of Neodarwinism.

The normal context of natural selection_3b brings the actuality of adaptation_2b into relation with a niche_1b. The niche_1b is the potential_1b of an actuality independent of the adapting species_2a.

Notably, Newson and Richerson are not aware that the actuality independent of the adapting Homo genus_2a is … um… found in Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche. To some degree, this ignorance explains the hidden ingredient,discussed earlier.

Here is the genetics side of Neodarwinism.

The normal context of body development_3b brings the actuality of the phenotype_2b into relation with its genotype_1b. The genotype_1b is the potential_1b of each individual specimen’s DNA_2a.

0037 Now the actualities of adaptation₂ and phenotype₂ constitute a single actuality, which may be labeled “individual”, “species” or “genus”. Here, the term, “species”, is used.

0038 This relational structure is developed in Razie Mah’s e-books, Speculations on Thomism and Evolution and Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome, along with other works in the series, A Course on Evolution and Thomism.

07/24/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 6 of 16)

0039 Intersections are inherently mysterious.

0040 Newson and Richerson are scientists, so their big picture tries to get around the mystery of two actualities constituting a single actuality. One of the tricks is the hidden ingredient. Another trick is to replace the content-level hylomorphe, DNA [codes for] body_2a, with a single word, “gene“_2a.

0041 Two novel definitions allow me to further describe their approach.

A “phenotype” is the situation-level potential_1b virtually situating the content-level potential_1a.

An “adaptation” is the perspective-level actuality_2c virtually contextualizing the situation-level actuality_2b. The situation-level actuality_2b ranges from social interaction [stimulates] hormone response_2b to culture [informs] brain_2b.

0042 Now, the theoretical construct as a three-level interscope looks like the following.

0043 So, an “adaptation” is a perspective-level actuality_2a (arising from the potential of reproductive success_1ccontextualizing an instance, ranging from social interaction [stimulates] hormonal response_2b to culture [informs] brain_2b. Here, the “adaptation” includes the ways_2c that mother-infant interaction [stimulates] hormones_2b increases reproductive success_1c.

Here, a “phenotype” is emotional attachment_1b virtually emerging from (and situating) an innate_2a function_1a.

0044 Consequently, the terms, “adaptation” and “phenotype” are no longer independent actualities, as noted in the previous blog. Instead, they are labels for two category-crossing pairs, one for actuality and one for potential.

For “adaptation”, sociality_3b, reproductive success_1c and natural selection_3c are bound. The perspective-level actuality_2carises from reproductive success_1c, a necessary, but not sufficient cause. The situation-level actuality_2b is a hylomorphe, ranging from social interactions [stimulate] hormones to culture [informs] brains.

For “phenotype”, body development_3a, genes_2a, function versus plasticity_1a and ‘something’ social_1b are bound. ‘Something’ social_1b can support social interactions_2b or culture_2b. The brain and body_3a will innately display either functionality or plasticity or some combination of the two_1a.

0046 Here is the picture for mother-infant bonding, which displays function as the content-level potential.

0047 Chapter two discusses the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees.

Newson and Richerson discuss some ways that social interactions may grade into (what scientists might call) culture.

0048 The first concerns vocalizations. Yes, vocalizations may be social interactions. Or, they may be the product of social interactions. A great ape may want to engage in some interactions and avoid other interactions. These intentions are physically on display when an ape takes the initiative to do something. Something may include vocalizations, but action is everything. Actions are signs of intention.

Newson and Richerson mention vocalizations because (somehow) these creatures have to end up speaking, like we do today. They cannot imagine an alternate pathway, such as the one described in Razie Mah’s e-masterworks, The Human Niche and An Archaeology of the Fall, along with commentaries grouped in the series, Buttressing the Human Niche and Reverberations of the Fall.

0049 The second is group living. In group living, social interactions abound.

0050 The third consists in compromises that accompany group living: hierarchy and alliances

0051 The fourth is grooming, which sustains alliances and fits well into the hormone-release concept of social interaction.

0052 Here, genes_2a grant an established hormone-triggering system a degree of plasticity_1a. Hormones_2b are relaxing and promote emotional alliances_1b.

0053 The fifth is culture, which consists in non-genetic inheritance, typically passed from mother to offspring. Here, culture includes how to interact while grooming, as well as how to look for and acquire food. The habits satisfy needs. At the same time, habits [of satisfying] needs_2b reflect the essence of the hylomorphe, culture [informs] brains_2b.

The “adaptation” concerns paying attention to what others are doing_2c when others are engaged in habitual activities [that satisfy] needs (such as finding food)_2b. The “phenotype” relies on the potential of neural plasticity_1a in order to support the potential of attributing intention_1b.

07/21/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 7 of 16)

0054 Chapter three discusses apes that walk upright. The authors present a snapshot from three millions years ago.

In the previous blog, three examples provided case studies of the way that the situation-level actuality_2b (characterizing the “adaptation”) coordinates with the content-level potential_1a (characterizing the “phenotype”). Mother-infant interactions [stimulate] hormones_2b coordinates with the potential of innate functions_1a. Primate grooming_2b is mixed_1a. Habits for foraging, signaling and so on_2b favors plasticity_1a.

0055 Newson and Richerson do not express the logic of their argument as explicitly as portrayed in this examination. Perhaps, they may demand a few adjustments to my exercise. That is fair.

At the same time, one can take my assessments much further.

The authors’ approach opens up to a dichotomy that is expressed very early in the philosophy in the West, and much earlier in the unfolding of our current Lebenswelt.

Two situation-level actualities may be explicitly abstracted using the labels, “body” and “mind”.

0056 This dichotomy is built over generations into our genus through implicit abstraction,

The body responds to signals.

The mind responds to signs.

0057 How does this complementarity come to be?

Three million years ago, so-called “southern apes” walk between widely separated areas of rich resources in an environment of mixed forest and savannah. Australopithecines walk upright. The foot becomes enslaved for walking. The hand is freed for other tasks.

The authors offer a drawing of a pot-bellied ape with relatively long arms and short legs. As the tropical forests retreated due to the cooler climate of the Pleistocene, these little troopers start to walk from place to place.

0058 They face a host of challenges.

0059 They must avoid or confront predators. Ah, put a stick in the little fellow’s hand! Or maybe a rock. The other hand will carry an infant or some food. Well, maybe the males carry the clubs and the females carry the infants.

An ancient social habit, where one large male rules over a harem of females, begins to break down, because no single male can carry a stick and a baby at the same time. More males are needed to carry the sticks. And the rocks. And whatever else the females do not want to carry.

Is this starting to sound vaguely familiar?

0060 Newson and Richerson focuses on one team, mothers helping others in organizing infant care. The authors pay lip service for some other teams, such as males foraging and occasionally fighting off enemies (hyenas and baboons) on the periphery of the camp.

0061 It is here, in the recognition of the importance of the team, where Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche, begins to shine. Teams constitute cultures outside of the mother-infant dyad. It is as if the mother-infant dyad is generalized, so that belonging to a team, cooperating, taking risks, sharing situational awareness, suffering losses and gaining benefits becomes… well… familiar. Culture [informs] brains_2b builds off the foundations of social interactions [stimulate] hormonal responses_2b. Minds_2b and bodies_2b co-evolve.

0062 Plus, the build-out extends signaling into sign-processing. Signaling is the stuff of dyadic stimulus-response. Sign-processing is the stuff of triadic relations, where a sign-vehicle stands for a sign-object in regards to a sign-interpretant.

In the first chapter, the authors state that culture is information and information is shared. To me, they do not go on to develop that statement where signaling (which is the information of cause and effect) extends into sign-processing (where information may be regarded as sign-vehicles that can key into sign-objects due to innate (genes) or learned (cultural) sign-interpretants).

0063 Why do the authors not develop the extension of signals into sign-processing?

Here is an example that follows the presentation in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, available as smashwords and other e-book venues.

The dyadic nature of the social interaction of the mother-infant dyad can be depicted as content and situation levels of a two-level interscope. Two-level interscopes are characteristic of sensible construction. Note that the actualities₂ imply, but do not demand, awareness of the respective normal contexts₃ and potentials₁.

0064 The triadic nature of social interaction within a team can be depicted using the same sensible construction. But now, the interactions consist of individuals gesturing to one another and responding to the moment with the intent of attaining a goal. Two-level interscopes are characteristic of sensible construction. Note that the actualities₂ imply, and to some extent, demand, awareness of the respective normal contexts₃ and potentials₁.

But, what does the word, “awareness”, really mean?

0065 Team activities entail sign-processing. Acheulean stone tools serve as archaeological evidence of a team activity that lasts for generations. These tools remain the same for hundreds of thousands of years, but the associated sign-processing abilities continually improve. Why? Improved sign-processing increases reproductive success.

0066 Even though the authors emphasize the importance of culture, Newson and Richerson miss the concept that the human niche includes the potential of signs. Sign-relations are actualities independent of the adapting species.

The following two-level interscope appears in general form in point 0035.

The following two-level interscope applies to evolution that begins around three million years ago.

0067 In order to explain the evolution of talk, the authors mention how the voice could be employed for signaling. They argue as if the only way to talk is by using the voice. They ignore recent linguistic studies on sign languages. They do not notice that the hand is already under voluntary neural control and voluntary neural control is required to talk.

0068 The authors also note that, by three million years ago, the crania of the southern apes are already enlarging. Larger brains assist sign processing.

0069 Other changes to include in this period include the loss of hair. Perhaps, the loss is related to climatic conditions.

Finally, the authors go into detail about what biologists observe when animals are domesticated. For example, the fox and the boar have been domesticated. In the process, these creatures change appearance and temperament in a holistic manner.

What does domestication mean?

What does it mean to join team human?

07/20/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 8 of 16)

0070 Here is a key distinction that develops as early as three million years ago.

These situation-level actualities fit into a three-level interscope that (more or less) depicts the relational character of the author’s theoretical approach.

0071 For gene-culture co-evolution, genes_2a associate with “phenotype” and culture_2b associates to “adaptation”. “Adaptation” and “phenotype” are big category-crossing words.

0072 The transition from (one branch of the) southern apes to the Homo genus occurs by 1.5Myr (million of years ago). This time serves as the snapshot for chapter four, concerning early humans.

0073 Clearly, the authors are worried about how we gain voluntary control of our vocal apparatus in order to speak. They do not imagine that the stage is set for the routinization of manual-brachial gestures during team activities.

Why is routinization so important?

As the gestures of hand talk become more distinct from one another, they start to form a system of differences. According to Ferdinand de Saussure, language consists in two arbitrarily related systems of differences, parole (speech) and langue(processed sign-objects). The relation is arbitrary for speech, but not for hand talk. Hand talk pictures and points to its referents.

In short, language evolves in the milieu of hand talk, not speech talk.

0074 But, everyone speaks today. So what gives?

Well, the answer to that comes much, much later.

0075 Instead of really confronting how language could have evolved, the authors assume that all languages are spoken. So, they tell a story about the mouth.

In order to get linguistic speech, the mouth and throat must come under voluntary neural control.

The story is about a mother chewing food and spitting it into the mouth of her weaning child. Certainly, that cultural behavior encourages adaptation towards voluntary neural control of the mouth and throat. But, where does a need for a functional vocabulary come into play?

0076 In the same story, the authors discuss Acheulean stone tools (mentioned earlier in point 0065) and imagine a whole team of hominins joining to appear as a single very large animal in order to approach and scavenge a carcass. Now, that is teamwork! Manual-brachial gestures are crucial for this type of job. The more readily that each specific gesture is interpreted, the better off everyone is.

0077 Here is a two-level interscope that fits this portion of the story.

0078 The Acheulean stone tool_3a is a sign-vehicle. The sign-object is the dyad, stone tool [conveys] intention_2b. The Acheulean stone tool is like a big tooth, capable of slicing meat off carcasses and crushing the bones to get the fatty marrow. In hand talk, I can picture or point to the stone tool, but I cannot picture or point to the sign-object, even though I know that stone tool [conveys] intention. All the participants have the sign-object in mind, but no one can talk about that in hand talk. Even more important, each participant holds a similar normal context_3b, where the team activity of scavenging is significant_3b, and potential_1b, where working together must occur in order to accomplish the task_1b.

Manual-brachial gestures_2b are the way that hominins talk in team activities_2c. Once gestures are routinized, symbolic processing characteristic of grammar may evolve.

0079 Hand talk does not allow the participants to “name” the sign-object and sign-interpretant. Hand talk images and indicates a sign-vehicle. Everyone recognizes the sign-vehicle, then implicitly abstracts a sign-object (that cannot be pictured or pointed to). That implicit abstraction is the sign-interpretant.

The Homo genus gets better and better at scavenging and hunting.

The Homo genus gets better and better at reading signs.