0041 Clearly, Hodder’s theory of entanglement requires embellishment. Sensible construction alone will not do. Social construction is another facet of entanglement. In the houses of Catal Hoyuk, no one ever uses the terms, “belonging”3c, “home”2c or “reside”1c. Instead, they know the meanings, the presences and the messages of these terms in their hearts. They are habits of being.
What is it like to dwell in a living world where gesture-words are defined by things and events that one can picture or point to?
0042 Here is another application of Hodder’s sensible theory of entanglement.
Most likely, each filled-in element has corresponding manual-brachial gesture-words.
Figure 09
During the epipaleolithic, humans sow an original wild wheat on newly exposed riverbeds on the edges of streams. Why? Well, they observe that the riverbeds are nice little plots of land, free of weeds, that can be used to grow a preferred brand of grass. Why sow grass? There are lots of practical uses for grass, including mixing with clay to make stucco for houses and tinder for lighting fires.
0043 That is just the start.
The grass responds with an adaptation honoring the seeds that the humans sow. Human habits increase the potential for robust rachis, rather than delicate rachis. Grass with delicate rachis drop their seeds when humans cut the stalk. Stalks with robust rachis retain their seeds for humans to thresh and use again. Plus, they are edible. Put some in a pot with milk and place the pot in the fire for a while and the result is a delicious and teeth-rotting mush.
Figure 10
0044 Today’s technical name for the new variety is “emmer wheat”. During the early Neolithic, emmer wheat becomes common throughout southwest Asia. Mush gets added to the menu. But, soon enough, new culinary adaptations arise, including bread and beer.
0045 Here is the application of Hodder’s sensible theory with respect to emmer wheat2a as a thing2a. In human-thing dependency, processing food2b virtually situates emmer wheat2a. Humans2b depend on things2a. I call this H2b-T2adependence.
Figure 11
0046 Chapters four (“Humans and Things”), five (“Webs of Dependencies”), six (“The Generation of Change”) and seven (“Path Dependency and Two Forms of Dependencies”) fill in details.
0047 For example, the potential of ‘the growing, harvesting and threshing’1b of emmer wheat2a designates a human-thing (HT) dependency.
One could say that the biological adaptations occurring in the wheat designate a thing-human (TH) dependency. But, a more obvious designation of thing-human dependency are the tools that were invented in order accomplish specific tasks, including baskets for holding seeds and clay pots for cooking mush. These tool-things would not exist were it not for humans.
0048 For example, cutting grass stalks is one of the tasks in processing food2b from emmer wheat2a. This task2b situates a content-level nested form in such a manner as to project an artifact2a into the slot for thing2a. That artifact is a stone sickle2a. Some things2a depend on humans2b. I call this T2a-H2b dependence.
Figure 12
0049 On top of that, there is a subsidiary of H2b-T2a dependence that associates to the desirability of the tool1b for its particular task2b. Certain tools work better than others. A stone sickle made of obsidian is better than one made of granite. The obsidian from a volcano near Catal Hoyuk2a makes great tools, not only sickles, but knives and arrowheads. This obsidian is found throughout the ancient Near East, showing evidence for down-the-line trading during the early Neolithic.
0050 I call this T2b-T2a dependency.
Figure 13
0051 Hodder proposes one more dependency. To me, this dependency is unlike the three types covered so far. But, Hodder does not see that this additional dependency is unlike the rest. I wonder whether there is evidence of it to be found in the archaeological site of Catal Hoyuk.
0052 The first three dependencies, H2b-T2a, T2a-H2b and T2b-T2a are fully expressed within the two-level interscope of Hodder’s sensible theory of entanglement.
My next question brings in the hypothesis of the first singularity, mentioned in points 0029 and 0030.
Do these dependencies require explicit abstraction?
Or, do these dependencies roll out holistically, as if entanglement2b proceeds in the same fashion as natural selection2b?
If so, these dependences are guided by implicit abstraction.
0053 Plus, parallels between human evolution3b and Hodder’s entanglement3b, already noted in the third day of this blog (points 0017 to 0022) offer intriguing insights.
0054 Here is a picture of the ultimate human niche.
Figure 14
0055 Note that triadic relations2a compose the actuality independent of the adapting species2a. Triadic relations2a are immaterial (technically, purely relational) beings… er… things2a. Yet, they are real enough to support the ultimate human niche. The beauty of this proposal is demonstrated in Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of The Mind, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0056 Compare the above figure to triadic relations2a as things2a in the normal context of entanglement3b.Triadic relations include humans as one terminus and things as another terminus. For example, a particular type of cloud may serve as a sign of coming inclement weather. At the same time, humans may serve as one terminus and humans as another. For example, a gesture pointing to a cloud of a particular type may signal that certain precautions should be taken, such as moving to higher ground or building a shelter.
Here is a picture of Hodder’s sensible entanglement theory with triadic relations as things2a.
Figure 15
0057 Of all the potential ‘uses of triadic relations’1b, one stands out: the use of manual-brachial gestures to sign to one another during team activities. This connection is explored in Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0058 Team cooperation3b brings manual-brachial gestures2b into relation with the potential of ‘sensibly picturing or pointing to salient things and events’1b.
I call the spectrum from pantomime to fully grammatical manual-brachial gestures, “hand talk”.
0059 On top of that, a juxtaposition of the situation-level category-based nested form for the human niche and for Hodder’s sensible entanglement theory suggests that the entire situation-level nested form for entanglement constitutes the actuality of human adaptation2b.
0060 Here is the comparison.
Figure 16
0061 Does the nested form at the top neatly fit into the situation-level actuality at the bottom?
It appears so.
Figure 17
0062 But, I add an important note.
Look at the situation-level potential1b. It1b changes from the potential of triadic relations to implicit abstraction.
In human evolution, cooperative3b activities2b locate uses of triadic relations1b without an explicit awareness of the nature of triadic relations2a. Indeed, an explicit awareness of triadic relations only appears on the stage of civilizationduring the past four-hundred years, first, with the Baroque Scholastic John Poinsot and second, with the American Postmodern Philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce.
Instead, our awareness of triadic relations is implicit. Implicit awareness1b coincides with potential ‘uses of triadic relations’1b. Implicit abstraction is innate and explains why the neocortex size of hominin brains has systematically expanded during the past two million years. See Comments on Derek Bickerton’s Book (2014) More Than Nature Needs,by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
In other words, entanglement theory applies to the evolution (and history) of the situation-level nested form of cooperation3b, where the potential for cooperation1b may be labeled with the term, “implicit abstractions1b“.
0064 I ask, “Why do hominins engage in cooperative activities3b?”
0065 Hodder’s book serves as a concrete example.
Hodder labors to share his knowledge and insights.
Hodder anticipates remuneration or acclamation for his efforts.
Hodder competes (labors) to cooperate (share knowledge), because the fruits of cooperation (remuneration and acclamation) increase his chances of reproductive success.
0066 Okay, that may sound reductionist. It is. But, anyone who reads books by social scientists is familiar with this type of nonsense.
0067 As an archaeologist, Hodder is honestly trying to puzzle out a difficulty. How does one explicitly discuss implicit abstraction1b, the potential hiding within entanglement theory3b?
Oh, I know how.
Rely on implicit abstraction to convey the impression that entanglement theory coincides with a human adaptation.
0068 From the prior blog, I know that Hodder’s entanglement theory indirectly describes a human adaptation2b. This adaptation2b exploits a niche1b in the normal context of natural selection3b. The human niche1b is the potential of triadic relations1b.
Triadic relations2a are purely relational beings. They rely on material beings. But, they are not material beings. They are like things, in the sense that they exist in the environment of evolutionary adaptation. They are not mere things, like boulders resting on a valley floor. They are like boulders changing the way that water flows in a river. They are relational beings.
0069 Hodder writes as if things entangle us. He wants to extend the idea to biological evolution. Things create potentials1b that may be exploited by adaptations2b in the normal context of natural selection3b.
But the inverse is also true. Life searches for opportunities to stay alive. Life seeks ways to avoid death. Sometimes, things provide those opportunities. Sometimes, things provide dangers. We know this in our bones. Potential may be opportunity. Potential may be dangerous.
Consequently, entanglement theory should fall into our mind’s lap, like manna from heaven.
0070 These comments add value to Hodder’s work. Here is a way to articulate Hodder’s entanglement theory.
Figure 19
0071 Hodder refines his theory by isolating various dependencies. Human-thing dependence is H2b-T2a. Thing-human dependency, T2a-H2b, is an instance when the content-level normal context3a and potential1a come into play as a projection of implicit awareness1b. Thing2a-thing1b dependency describes the nature of tools.
These dependencies are salient in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
0072 Oh, I almost neglected to mention one more dependency. Human-human dependency.
Now, this dependency is like all the other dependencies. At the same time, H-H dependency is not the same as all the other dependencies. How so? One of the elements of H-H must be a thing. One element changes from a human to a thing. This transformation characterizes explicit abstraction. In this regard, all the other dependencies may be re-enacted with specialized humans as things.
H-H dependency is salient in our current Lebenswelt.
0073 Plus, our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
0074 A terminological shift is appropriate when considering human-human dependency in our current Lebenswelt. Instead of a “thing”, the person becomes an “object”.
Of course, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, one can never objectify a person within one’s own social circles. What does one image or point to? Hand-speech talk does not allow objectification, that is, explicit abstraction.
0075 Can I wrap my head around this idea?
In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in,linguistic hand-speech talk always referred to things and states of things that could be imaged or pointed to with manual-brachial word gestures. In our current Lebenswelt,almost every spoken word that I know involves an explicit abstraction, where meaning, presence and message are projected into a formant-frequency placeholder (a parole) in a system of differences. How mind boggling.
0076 When we project meaning, presence and message into a spoken word, the intended referent becomes an “object”. A “baker” is someone who makes the dough to make bread. A “ovener” is someone who makes sure that the fire heating an oven is constantly and correctly maintained.
Well, that is the nomenclature that I am going to use.
0077 Now, I can return to the diagrams of H2b-T2a, T2a-H2b and T2b-T2a presented earlier (points 0036-0041).
Emmer wheat is used to make bread. This is an example of human-thing dependency, H2b-T2a, in our current Lebenswelt.
Figure 20
0078 Bread is a product of organized human activities. Because spoken words may be used to label specialized features of the organization2b, explicit abstraction allows various tasks to become specialties, such as baker and ovener2a. This follows the pattern of thing-human dependency, T2a-H2b.
Here is a picture.
Figure 21
0079 The specialties of “baker” and “ovener”, once defined, promulgate feelings of implicit abstraction. These people-things become artifacts that validate our projections of meaning, presence and message into the spoken words. These specialties2a are part of the toolset for producing product1a in the normal context of managing a bakery3a.
Humans are now tools. The question arises, “What makes a good ‘baker’ or ‘ovener’?”
Of course, these human-tools require training2a.
0080 Plus, these specialists2b better do their jobs well1b in the normal context of running a bakery business3b. This criteria fits the style of thing-thing dependence. However, now the things are objectified humans.
0081 Needless to say, Hodder proves a variety of examples in his excellent work.
Some of the examples carry moral overtones.
0082 For example, the making of thread starts during the Neolithic with spinning whorls. These distinctly shaped cylinders twist strands of wool or flax fiber together. They take some skill to use. One must turn the whorl in a particular way in order to produce thread. The thread may not be fine. It is thread nonetheless.
By the medieval period of Europe, “spinsters” use fairly sophisticated pedal-powered spinning wheels, where the rotary motion is powered by a foot pedal and the cylinder-aspect of the whorl is performed by a spinning wheel. Obviously, explicit abstraction plays a role in the technical separation of the spin from the fiber holding aspects of the old-fashioned whorl. Now, finer threads are made.
So, the whorl to spinning-wheel transition belongs to our current Lebenswelt.
0083 What about fire?
The domestication of fire, accomplished hundreds of thousands of years ago, occurs in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in,when hand talk favors implicit abstraction. Note that there are no “fire specialists” apparent in the fossil record for the ensuing millennia. Making fire involves tacit knowledge. Making fire is procedural. Making fire is an embodied experience. Do we have a spoken word to label the making of fire as a cooperative effort?
0084 In contrast, the specialty of running a kiln occurs in our current Lebenswelt. Kilns are used to cook things, such a pottery, at particularly high temperatures. Indeed, in this instance, two specialties are apparent: the one who makes pots out of clay and the one who fires the pottery using a kiln. Expertise is required for both specialties. Explicit abstraction is required for expertise.
0085 Perhaps, the fact that humans can be objectified as things in our current Lebenswelt accounts for Hodder’s moral intonations.
Or, perhaps a feeling of moral indignation arises from his examples, include opium, which starts as a thing, a poppy plant.
0086 In our current Lebenswelt, explicit abstraction allows humans to be objectified.
Objects can be treated as things in Hodder’s H-T, T-H and T-T dependencies.
The result?
H-H dependencies include H-O, O-H and O-O dependencies.
0087 Plus, H-H dependency carries moral implications.
Why?
Dependencies on things is intuitively natural for humans. We adapted into a niche filled with these dependencies.
Dependencies on objects requires explicit abstraction. Once implemented, these dependencies start to feel intuitively natural. Once established, they feel intuitively natural.
But, they are not.
0088 Perhaps, I am starting to appreciate the implications of Hodder’s title: Where are we heading?
Imagine what happens when I replace the term, “things”, with “objects” (that includes humans).
0090 An object2a comes into being through explicit abstraction. Then, it enters the relational-structure of Hodder’s entanglement theory. There, it2a is sustained as a content-level actuality through implicit abstraction1b, within the normal context of cooperation2b.
In Hodder’s treatment of opium as a thing, both producers (in India) and consumers (in China) are treated as objects2a by the British East India trading company. The opium wars occur at the same time that British socialites insist that the slave trade from Africa to the Americas must go. Yes, the East India monopoly is one step ahead of the reformers. If it cannot traffic slaves, then it can traffic opium.
0091 One consequence?
The antipathy of contemporary Chinese towards the Westafter the so-called, “century of humiliation”, parallels the resentments of the descendants of slaves in the Americas after their so-called “liberation”.
Hodder’s book makes the case. The moral implications of objectifying humans, then treating them as things, is enormous. It corrupts the offending society, because people regard explicit arrangements through the cognitive operations of implicit abstraction. It warps the victim society, because people know that they are being objectified, and turned into things, through explicit abstraction.
0092 Yes, classifying people as objects goes back to the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia, the first culture to practice speech-alone talk. They are the first culture to encounter the weirdness of explicit abstraction. Explicit abstraction makes distinctions that cannot be formulated through implicit abstraction. Oddly, after a generation, the distinction feels completely natural.
Why?
Hodder’s entanglement theory relies on implicit abstraction. Entanglement theory applies to things. With explicit abstraction, entanglement theory also applies to objects. Humans can be objectified as things.
0093 Objectification assists labor and social specialization.
Specialization is characteristic of our current Lebenswelt of unconstrained social complexity.
Hodder opens his book with graphs designed by Ian Morris, concerning the broad sweep of the past millennia. The following figure is a rough sketch of the number of specializations versus time.
Figure 24
0094 Hodder uses similar figures to show that human evolution is directional, in so far as humans are entangled with more and more things. These comments refine his proposals.
0095 They also show the importance of the hypothesis of the first singularity.
The hypothesis is plainly stated in the e-book, The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace.
The hypothesis is dramatically rendered in the masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall.
These e-works are available at smashwords and other e-book venues. Search for the author’s name, Razie Mah, along with the title.
0097 Whatever surrogate for complexity that one uses, an inflection point occurs around 7800 years ago. Once speech-alone talk influences and then replaces hand-speech talk, explicit abstraction adds to implicit abstraction. H-T, T-H, T-T entanglements expand to H-H entanglements (H-O, O-H, O-O). Explicit abstraction is required. But, once humans are objectified, then implicit abstraction kicks back in. One would never know that a distinction defined by spoken wordsbecomes… well… intuitively natural.
Yes, once an objectification is implemented and routinized, then humans become things.
0098 The masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall, mentions Dr. Ian Hodder as lead investigator at the Catal Hoyuk archaeological site (point 0206).
A mother poses a question, saying (more or less), “Don’t you think that Dr. Hodder would benefit from knowing the hypothesis of the first singularity?“
The son says, “He can figure it out for himself.”
What a reply.
0099 Catal Hoyuk flourishes as a hand-speech talking culture. It belongs to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, right at the cusp, before the start of the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.
The site is abandoned as soon as our current Lebenswelt begins.
0100 Surely, the end of Catal Hoyuk can be attributed to climate changes at the start of our current interglacial, in the same way that the formation of a creole-speaking Ubaid culture can be attributed to rising sea levels.
But, climate explanations are not enough. These comments add value to Hodder’s argument. Entanglement theoryundergoes a fundamental change once speech-alone talk enters our world.
Hodder proposes that human-thing entanglements enslave us. They do. However, human-thing entanglements pale in comparison with human-object entanglements. The hypothesis of the first singularity enriches Hodder’s entanglement theory by adding a Peircean relational foundation, then depicting how objects2a may be treated the same as things2a. Objects2a are products of explicit abstraction. Things2a are not.
0101 Slavery begins in our current Lebenswelt with the objectification of humans.
