0413 Tomasello proposes three interlocking movements to the natural history of human cognition.

Then, he discusses two steps.  First, there is the era of joint intentionality.  Second, there is the era of collective intentionality.

So, there is terminological confusion, leading me to number the era of individual intentionality as “zero”.

0414 My explanation for this incoherent nomenclature calls to mind Tomasello’s vision, where the phenotype of human ontogeny_2c occupies the perspective-level actuality and the adaptation of joint and collective attention_2a occupies the content-level actuality. Research into early human cognitive development_2c must somehow connect with research into the cognition of great apes_2a.  Tomasello projects the cognitive development of newborns and infants backwards, into evolutionary time, towards the last common ancestor (LCA), represented by cognitive research into the behaviors of great apes.

So, there are three eras and two steps, which does not sound bad, because not much happens in the first era.

But, there is another issue.

0415 On top of the incoherent nomenclature, Tomasello frames the era of joint intentionality as occurring after the appearance of the Homo genus, which occurs 1.8Myr (millions of years ago).  He starts the era of collective intentionalitywith the appearance of new species, such as Homo heidelbergensis, around 0.5Myr.  The first guess is not reasonable.  The second is more plausible.

How so?

0416 Consider the archeological record for artifacts.

0417 Two pairs stand out.

The first is the pair of Oldowan, then Acheulean stone-tool technologies.  These archaeological artifacts associate to one team among many.  Consequently, they represent the era of joint intentionality.

The second pair is intimations of the use of fire, and then, the domestication of fire.  These archaeological artifacts associate to the era of collective intentionality, for the obvious reason that cooking presents the opportunity for common meals that are not like the prior sharing of abundance from teams.  Cooking produces qualitatively different food sharing opportunities.  More teams means more food and a more varied menu.  Then, the hearth itself provides a site for parties to linger and tell stories in hand talk.  During this era, hand talk become fully linguistic.  General grammar evolves.

0418 To me, these two pairs associate to the two steps in human evolution that Tomasello identifies.

0419 Consequently, my associations to Tomasello’s eras does not coincide with his own.

0420 But, that is not all.

With this adjustment in mind, I would think that the natural history of morality would commence in step one.  But, Tomasello does not start in step one.  Chapter two, titled “Evolution of Cooperation”, points to step zero… er… the first era.

0421 Tomasello introduces the question, “Why sociality?”

The first and most primordial answer says, “Bands serve as protection against predators.”

But, safety in numbers comes at a cost.  Each member of the band competes for access to resources.  Hierarchies get established.  Alliances form.  Hierarchies and alliances are not the same.  Each bears its own actuality.

0422 Here are two nested forms.

0423 Power₂ does not situate affiliation₂.  Affiliation₂ does not situate power₂.

Both are in dynamic equilibrium.

0424 Such is life in the era of individual intentionality.

0425 Evolutionary anthropologists observe and measure the behaviors of great apes, who come as close to any creature to our ancestors living during the millions of years between the LCA and the bipedal “southern apes”.  Evolutionary anthropologists model ape-behavior by asking the question, “How does each strategy of group living contribute to getting one’s genes into the next generation?”

Strategies for success include kin selection, group selection and selection for mutualism and reciprocity.  I suppose the first item coheres to establishment₃ and the latter items go with alliance formation₃.  Group selection is the odd inclusion, due to the fact that neither establishment₃ nor alliances₃ can exclude one another, try as they might.  If establishment₃dominates, then the group fails from passivity and free-riding.  If alliance₃ dominates, then the group fails from internal conflict.

0426 What does this imply?

Ah, power₂ and affiliation₂ must constitute a single actuality₂.

That actuality₂, in this case, is a social circle, or a group, called “band”.

The technical term for this relational structure is “intersection”.  Two actualities intersect.

0427 Kin selection favors establishment_3H.

Selection for mutualism and reciprocity favor alliances_3V.

Group selection contains the contradictions between power₂ and affiliation₂.

So, the group must be the single actuality.

0428 I wonder, “Do evolutionary anthropologists, such as Tomasello, implicitly (not explicitly) realize this?”

In other words, if the single actuality₂, the group₂, associates to one of the actualities in Tomasello’s vision, then I would say that it₂ is neither shared intentionality_2a nor human ontology_2c.  Therefore, the group₂ must associate to culture_2b… I mean to say… interdependence_2b.

Here is a picture.

0429 Why is the intersection so important?

Interdependence_2b belongs to secondness, the realm of actuality, for both the nested form and the level.

On the content level, natural selection_3a is the normal context where joint attention_2a emerges from (and situates) sociogenesis_1a (which turns out to be the potential of triadic relations).

On the situation level, cultural selection_3b is the normal context where interdependence_2b (starting with the either family, intimates or the band, in the era of individual intentionality) emerges from and situates cooperation_1b (which is the potential_1b of shared intentionality_2a).

On the perspective level, natural selection (in milieu of culture)_3c is the normal context where the hominin phenotype_2cemerges from and situates the potential of ’embodying interdependence’_1c.

0430 What factor is an evolutionary anthropologist to fixate on?

On top of that, interdependence_2b exhibits the relational structure of an intersection.

An intersection is full of contradictions.

In the extreme, establishment_3H without alliance_3V produces the magnificent peacock and his fickle and easily seduced hens.   

In the extreme, alliance_3V without establishment_3H produces the ant, where each worker shares the genes of every other worker and the queen holds authority because she is the one who gives life to the colony.

0431 Weirdly, both the peacock and the ant serve as metaphors for hominin society.

If the group₂ embodies interdependence_2b, then specialized academic inquiry into human evolutionary history tends to focus on the trees, without regard to the forest.  Kin selection promotes establishment_3H.  Selection for mutualism and reciprocity promotes alliance_3V.  And group selection?  How on earth can group selection contribute to reproductive success for an individual?

0432 Computer simulations abound.

But, the resolution stands beyond mere calculation.

Why?

Intersections are inherently mysterious.

0433 Here is another picture of the intersection for the band, during Era 1, lasting between 7 and 3.5Myr.

Am I joking?

Put “family, “friends” or “band” in for “interdependence_2b“.

0433 With this in mind, I examine the remainder of chapter two, starting with the subheading, “Great Ape Cooperation”.

The LCA, typical of great apes, is built for competition within a band.  Apes compete for food and nice places to nest.  Male apes compete for female apes.  Hierarchies get established and promote all sorts of Machiavellian cognitive traits.  Did I say Machiavelli?  Machiavelli titles one of his books, The Prince.  Does that title sound like establishment_3H or alliance_3V?  Hmmm, maybe it sounds like both.  Alliances are more than friendships and grooming partnerships, they contribute to conflicts in which the hierarchy may be challenged.  Alliances also diffuse the same conflicts.

0434 Machiavelli does not promote morality.  He does not counsel justice and fairness.  He promotes using the morality of others to advance one’s positional power.

0435 So, why would not everyone adopt Machiavellian principles?

One of the moments when Machiavellian individual intentionality does not apply occurs when one group (or band)threatens another.  Such a crisis may destroy established powers_2H and affiliations_2V.  An affirmation must be made.  Yes, there is justice in having a place in the heirarchy_1H.  There is fairness in having others on my side_1V.  So, in times of war, the artifices_2H,2V of Machiavellian propositions fall away, and the potentials_1H,1V that culture selects for_3b, supporting the actuality of our interdependence_2b, show their adaptive potential_1b.

0436 The group_2b adapts into the niche of cooperation_1b, the potential of joint attention_2a, by practicing ways of livingwhere each member has a place in the hierarchies_1H and has others on his and her side_1V.

0437 The group₂ is a mystery.

The natural history of morality entails the evolution of the purely relational structure that characterizes the presence underlying the word, “religion”.

0438 Once again, here is a picture of Tomasello’s vision.

0439 Okay, the following segment may seem to be a distraction.

Yes, from here to point 0443 constitutes a distraction.

Are there lessons here that apply to our current Lebenswelt?

Today, at the conclusion of the Age of Ideas, there are psychics, scientists and sociopaths who portray themselves as beings of greater awareness and enlightenment_2c.  These experts_2c want to select_3a for a new humanity_1a.

On what basis?

0440 First, they_2c consider all traditional civilized traditions_2b to be social constructions, rather than evolved products of group selection.

Because they_2c are devotees of postmodern science (which includes the natural and the social as well as the psychometric), they imagine that they can design_3b novel establishments_3H, based on their organizational objectives_1c.  These bureaucracies_3H will replace current unscientific and superstition-filled institutions_2b and denature countervailing reactionary groups_2b.

In short, the most certified among us_2c propose institutional selection_3b based on a type of cooperation_1b, defined as the potential_1b of everyone paying attention_2a to the society that they want to create_1a.

Another name for that potential_1b is “legitimacy_1b“.

Here is a picture.

0441 Second, their organizational objectives_1c critique all traditions_2b on the bases of power_2H and race_2V.  The term, “power”, entails an appointed position in any organization.  The term, “race”, is code for “tribe”, where “tribe” is defined by adherence to a particular organizational objective_1c. 

Awareness_1c of power_2H is supported by a specific version of justice_1H.  Individuals belonging to any of the designated “races” or “tribes” do not have a home in the any traditional hierarchy_1H, even though they may be appointed to long-established institutional positions.  Fixation_1c on power_2H breeds resentment.  Resentment creates what is called, “resilience”, the tenacity of knowing that the expert is righteous and others are not.  James Corney calls it_1H “a higher loyalty”.

Awareness_1c of affiliation_2V is supported by a particular version of fairness_1V.  Individuals belonging to opposing “races” or “tribes” (that is, people who do not ideate the revelations of the psychometric sciences) cannot be on the side_1V of the expert-designated “races” or “tribes”.  Fixation_1c on affiliation_2V breeds alienation_1V (the conviction that the opposing “races” or “tribes” can never be fair, that is, “on my side”).  Alienation is followed by coalescence_1V into a theoretically defined “tribe”.

Here is a picture.

“Interdependence_2b” transforms into “dependence on us, the experts_2b“.  But, both terms are too lengthy to fit into the above diagram.

So, the word, “group_2b” must do. 

0442 Third, awareness-driven fixation on organizational objectives_1c mandates the authority of the state to act on behalf of the enlightened beings_2c ,who embody the union of power_2H and tribalism_2V.

State-promulgated social justice_3c promotes programs of mandatory inclusion_1b of tribal members_2H into established positions of authority_2H (without an oath of loyalty) and demands the recognition of the legitimacy_1b of the academic postulates_3b that contextualize the theoretical construction of novel “races”_2V.  Indeed, to become an affiliate of any particular “tribe”_2V, one must first suffer alienation followed by illumination_1V.

0443 What am I talking about?

In order to see that Tomasello’s intersection of power_2H and affiliation_2V not only pertains to the era of individual intentionality, but also to the living world that academic elites currently strive to create, consider the blogs titled, Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind”, by Razie Mah, appearing in the month of April, 2022.

0444 So, is the era of individual intentionality truly Machiavellian?

No, the adjective, “Machiavellian”, does not qualify.

For one, Machiavelli writes in our current Lebenswelt.

For two, the previous blog shows me that the behavioral and cognitive traits of the era of individual intentionality, when transubstantiated in our current Lebenswelt through a late-modern critique of power_2H and affiliation_2V, recast these terms into awareness_2H and tribalism_2V, thereby reallocating the two pillars of human morality (as noted by early-modern philosopher, David Hume), fairness_1V and justice_1H, into the expert-defined possibilities of alienation_1V and resentment_1H.

0445 “Reallocate”?

Yes, that is what postmodern theorists mandate the state to do.  Reallocate cooperation_1b from historical foundations_1a to late-modern, theoretically defined foundations_1a.

0446 Hmmm.  That makes me wonder.

Where do Hume’s two pillars appear in the following intersection, applying to the era of individual intentionality?

0447 To me, ‘justice’ associates to ‘one’s kin as well as one’s hierarchical status’_1H.  What?  Is that not a selection pressure identified by evolutionary anthropologists?  Yes, it is.  Note how well this selection pressure fits into the slot_1Hotherwise labeled, “potential of place in hierarchy_1H“.

Also, ‘fairness’ associates to ‘mutualism and reciprocity’_1V.  Yes, that is another selection pressure identified by evolutionary anthropologists.  Note how well this selection pressure fits into the slot_1V otherwise labeled, “potential of having others on my side_1V“.

0448 What does this imply?

“Justice_1H” and “fairness_1V” are already values in the era of individual intentionality.  However, these values do not correspond to what people, in our current Lebenswelt, think that they ought to mean.  They correspond to selection pressures identified by evolutionary anthropologists.

Struggles between power_2H and affiliation_2V play out among family (5) and friends (5) within a band (50).  The band_2b is the group selected for in a tropical environment and ecology_3b in order to afford protection from predators_1b.  Each individual can forage on his or her own.  But, to go off alone is a death sentence.

0449 Here is a picture.

0450 The era of joint intentionality begins with bipedalism as an adaptation to a changing environment and ecology.  In eastern Africa, tropical forest gives way to mixed forest and savannah.  The individual “southern ape” is less likely to successfully forage alone.  So, for some lineages, collaborative foraging offers an option.  Then, it becomes a preferred option.  Then, it becomes the only option.

The team_2b is the group that is culturally selected for in the environment and ecology of mixed forest and savannah_3boperating on the potential of  ‘obligate collaborative foraging’_1b.

0451 Here is how the era starts.

0452 Chapter three is titled, “Second-Person Morality”.

0453 Here, a key insight from British anthropology comes into play, as delineated 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).  With speciation to Australopithecus (transliterated “southern ape”), bipedalism frees the hands and enslaves the feet.  The feet do the walking.  The hands do the talking.  At this point in hominin evolution, adaptations into the niche of triadic relations enter into the picture.

Social circles differentiate.  Love and affection characterizes family (5) and intimate friends (5).  Joint attention and shared intentionality typifies teams (15).  Teams are the active agents for obligate collaborative foraging.  Avoidance of predation underlies bands (50).

0454 What does that imply?

The groups of interest for the era of individual intentionality are family (5), intimate friends (5) and band (50).

The group that is of interest in the era of joint intentionality is the team (15).

0455 I ask, “Is a team_2b the intersection of power_2H and affiliation_2V?”

Yes, and no.

Yes, if the meanings of the words change.

No, if the meanings of the words remain the same.

0456 According to Tomasello, second-person morality develops as “you” and “me” act in concert as a “we” (team).  “We” have the motivations and skills required to pursue a joint goal, guided by shared intentions.  Joint attention structures individual perceptions of others’ actions.  Joint attention calls for judgment.  Habitual perceptions and judgments define “roles” in team activities.

0457 Roles are not pre-defined slots, arranged into organizational charts.  “Roles” label recurring patterns of habitual perceptions and judgments of one’s teammates.  These perceptions and judgments are in flux. However, they tend to fall into a stable pattern, making accommodation easier.  Individuals with perceptions and judgments that cannot be accommodated by other team-members are not invited to participate in team actions.

Say what?

0458 Hominins compete to cooperate.

0459 A team is a web of you-me relationships that perform as a single agent towards a single goal.  Power_2H and affiliation_2V are bound to a social contract that appears present to a disinterested observer, but cannot be pictured or pointed to by the hand-talking participants.  Indeed, power_2H and affiliation_2V are explicit abstractions that paper over the living collaborative “we” in the slogan, “We work for food.”

0460 Do early hominins collaborate in joint-attention activities for purely practical reasons?

Surely, “we”, this web of “you-me” relationships, with each “me” accommodating each “you” in order to say… gather much more food than any one of us could gather alone, cannot possibly be… may I say it?… fun?

0461 Practical reasons dictate that each “you-me” relationship is powered by productivity_2H.

At the same time, fraternal enjoyment dictates that each “you-me” relationship is affiliated with a certain savoir faire.  Having fun_2V is more than getting along_2V.

0462 If an evolutionary anthropologist from today could go back in time to Homo habilis, she would be shocked at the things that our ancestors ate.  Homo habilis and its next of kin, Homo erectus, are on the lookout for any food that other species ignore or cannot get to.  They compete with giraffes, who specialize in getting food that is high up, and zebras, who specialize in getting food growing out of the ground.  They also compete with baboons, hyenas, large cats and other dangerous critters.

So, where is hominin food supposed to come from?

0463 Neither giraffe, zebra, hyena or baboon can find food that is not edible, but becomes edible after being hidden.  Decay is like digestion.  Bugs can do the work, if the bugs are themselves edible.  So can fungus.

In mixed forest and savannah, food is always abundant, at the right location and not for long.  So, mixed forest and savannah selects for teams that forage when the time is right.  In addition, many teams figure out how to store… er… hide food after sharing with other teams in the band.  How is today’s evolutionary anthropologist supposed to figure out the diverse ways of obtaining, preparing, sharing and hiding food?

Even more incredibly, over generations, each successful team gets better and better at whatever they figured out, because a successful team leads to one’s genes getting into the next generation.  Neuronal tracts sensitive to whatever a successful team figures out are laid down in order to make team actions more and more intuitively natural, innate, and more likely to be spontaneously discovered under novel environmental and ecological conditions.

0464 Yes, today, if we even glanced at a menu composed of what these folks ate, we would immediately barf.

0465 Fortunately, Tomasello’s topic is morality, rather than culinary magic.

Tomasello sees team joint-activities as supporting an inclination to help one another.

Is this the first expression of what we call, “sympathy”?

He relates this expression to three sets of psychological processes, (1) a network of “you-me” relations, (2) partner choice and control and (3) self-regulation.  The first (1) constitutes the “we” of the team.  A team is not simply 15 “me”s.  A team is composed of over 100 “you-me” relations.  The second (2) claims that deservingness_1H and mutual respect_1V are crucial for a coherent team.  The third (3) suggests that everyone innately knows (1) and (2).  Indeed, all three psychological processes are observed in the cognitive development of newborns and infants.

0466 In teams, power_2H entails productivity_2H.

Affiliation_2V goes with having fun_2V.

The team has a slogan, declaring, “We work for food.”

But, hand-talk cannot explicitly abstract the word, “work”.  So, maybe the word, “do”, will suffice.  We do food?   Okay, I am sticking with the first team slogan.

0467 Here is a picture.

Note how the intersection maintains continuity.  The normal contexts remain the same.

Note how the constituting actualities and their associated potentials change.

Cultural selection_3b favoring obligate collaborative forgaging_1b alters the character of the intersection_2b, from power_1Hand affiliation_1V to productivity_1H and having fun_1V.

0468 We work for food_2b is the primary actuality_2b undergoing cultural selection_3b for nearly three million years, from the start of bipedalism (around 3.5Myr) to the start of the domestication of fire (0.8My).  The Homo genus, the intention of humans, is conceived and born in the era of joint intentionality.

0469 Here is a list of significant archaeological markers for this era.

0470 In the subsection titled, “Collaboration and Helping”, Tomasello calls the emergence of the Homo genus, “self-domestication”.

Self-domestication weaves three strands into one rope.

First, human pair-bonding is recognized as productive, thereby formalizing the role of father (and assuring his paternity of his mate’s children).  The slogan, “We work for food.”, extends to “We work for one another in the family.”

Second, new subsistence strategies evolve.  The Oldowan and Acheulean stone tools serve as an example.  Oldowan stone tools are made rapidly and on location.  Acheulean stone tools require preparation.  They are made at one location then carried to another.  The Oldowan and the Acheulean stone-tool teams are one among many.  Successful teams become better and better over generations as the neural architecture that supports the relevant behavioral skills and cognitive capacities evolves.

Third, cooperative childcare becomes a style of teamwork, in addition to collaborative foraging.  Childcare teamworkbroadens the nature of “you-me” relationships into new arenas of joint attention.  Shared intentionality becomes more and more…what is a good word for it?… ah… “domestic”.

0471 Tomasello envisions these three strands weaving together into a metaphorical rope that tames hominins.

Hominins self-domesticate.

0473 In the subsection titled, “Joint Intentionality”, Tomasello explores the nature of agency for a team.  The team is aweb of “you-me” relations.

Here is another picture of the team as a social circle.

0474 The team is not a thing.  The team is a being.  The team is a purely relational structure composed of “you-me” relations.  Each pair is a site of joint attention.  It is also the occasion for joint agency.  Each one of a 15 member teamjuggles 14 “you-me” relations.  I estimate the number of unique relations to be over one-hundred.  No wonder predators get confused.

0475 Each herd animal is only concerned with self and maybe a youngster.  So, even though there are many animals in a herd, the trajectory of each can be reliably calculated.

Not so a team of hominins.  No single predator can calculate the trajectory of one because the trajectories of the otherswill change in response to a predator pursuing one.  They are bound by multiple “you-me” relations, making their behaviors difficult to predict.

Plus, these hominins carry rocks.  Some carry sticks as well.  These rocks and sticks present additional dangers that are difficult to anticipate.

0476 So, may I say that each “you-me” relation is a joint agent?

Each joint agent works towards a single end.

May I call this end, “an organizational objective”?

0477 Tomasello endeavors to discern the common ground underlying each joint agent.

Does the word, “trust”, suffice?

What about adding the word, “normative”?

Does that help?

0478 What does “normative” mean?

If I know that you are slow at throwing your rock at a predator, then I throw my rock a little earlier than I otherwise would, certain that your slowness will achieve good timing if I do so.

Tomasello explicitly abstracts these accommodations using terms, such as “roles” and “perspectives”.

Do Tomasello’s spoken words suffice?

0479 How should one describe the team?

Each team member serves as a node in a web of dyadic relations.  Each dyad is a “you-me” relation.  Each dyad operates within one web, the “we” of the team.

Tomasello struggles with explicit abstractions.  Are these dyads “social contracts” or “extensions” or “second-person bonds” or what?

0480 Plus, there is another difficulty.

Which is more important, productivity_2H or having fun_2V?

By focusing on one, the researcher tends to neglect the other.

This difficulty explains the two titles for “team”.  “We work for food” emphasizes productivity_2H.  “Web of ‘you-me’ relations” highlights having fun_2V.

0481 Plus, there is the lure of further explicit abstraction.  “Roles” and “perspectives” are gateways to “collaborative role-ideals” that become archetypal attractors for “you-me” arrangements.  Examples include explorer-supporter, teacher-mentor, pusher-go along, leader-follower, daring-cautious, and so on.  Each team activity contains its own suite of archetypal attractors.  Can I go on to philosophize about how the principle of other-self equivalence applies?

How many rabbits of explicit abstraction can one pull out of the hat labeled either “we work for food” or “web  of ‘you-me’ relations?

Read for yourself.

0482 Tomasello chops a good deal of philosophical wood.

His labors are complicated by the fact that the word, “team_2b“, is constituted by two actualities, productivity_1H and having fun_2V, causing the single term to polarize.  The two poles are captured in two slogans, “we work for food” and “web of ‘you-me relations”.

Here is a picture of the polarization of the intersection of team₂.

0483 In order to visualize the roots and the branches of Tomasello’s task, consider projecting  the polarization of the teamback in time from the era of joint intentionality to the era of individual intentionality.

The results are remarkable.

0484 Tomasello’s woodpile is now starting to look like it is full of explicit abstractions that will demand further explicit abstractions that will demand further explicit abstractions.

Did Tomasello axe for this complicated mess?

0484 On top of that, if one substitutes the underlying potentials for the constituting actualities, within the paradigm of polarity, then the explicit abstractions that Tomasello chops in the first session transmogrify into a pile of philosophical wood ready for a second session.

It may take a second to figure out the two preceding diagrams.

Just saying.

0485 With the difficulties embedded within Tomasello’s woodpile now visualized, I turn to the subsection titled, “Second Person Agency”.

The initial challenge of the era of joint intentionality concerns good and fun collaborative partners choosing good and productive collaborative partners.

The axe comes down and this log splits into guilt (for when one denies mutual respect to others) and responsibility (for being productive).  What about labels for when one provides others with mutual respect and when one is not so productive?

Uh-oh.  Now, Tomasello has two more logs to chop.

0486 Adding to this philosophical woodpile, consider the question of how joint intentional activity arises in the first place.  

Here, Tomasello offers a figure, depicting two cooperating individuals facing an elevated gray triangle, emblazoned with the words, “Joint commitment to role ideals”.  To me, that means “we”.  We encompass our joint commitment to well… whatever the team is supposed to do.  From the bowels of the triangle, an arrow descends, bearing the words, “legitimately self-regulate”.  The arrow terminates, hitting the ground (so to speak) with the words, “according to our responsibility”.  Then, the impact of the arrow spreads to the feet of the cooperating individuals, and emerges from each head as an arrow returning to we, the embodiment of a joint commitment to role ideals.

0487 Here is my parody of Figure 3.1.  

Hmmm.  Tomasello’s stick figures have turned into meditative circle-heads.

0488 Why depict the individuals as circle-heads, weighed down by explicit abstractions that characterize “we”, “legitimate”, “self-regulate” and “responsibility”?

These spoken labels are not available to team members collaboratively foraging in the era of joint attention.  What is there to picture or point to using hand-talk?  Instead, whatever these spoken labels refer to are adaptations that end up as phenotypic traits, expressions of hominin neural and physiological architecture.

The meditative figures reflect the two minds of Tomasello. One is committed to the role ideal of evolutionary anthropologist.  One is devoted to concocting explicit abstractions in accordance with that ideal.  These two guide Tomasello’s philosophical axe in order to chop purely relational beings into label-worthy fragments.

0489 Towards the end of chapter three, concerning the era of joint intentionality, Tomasello launches into a subsectiontitled, “The Original Ought”.

What is moral psychology?

What is second-person morality?

The answer, of course, depends on how one defines these labels.

Or, does it?

0490 Chapter four is titled, “Objective Morality”.

Why apply the qualifier, “objective”, instead of “third-person”?

0491 Here is a picture of Tomasello’s three interlocking movements, once again.

To me, the pattern is obvious.  But, what is the difference between Tomasello’s qualifier, “objective” and the pattern-completing qualifier, “third-person”.

Who could the third person be?

0492 Before addressing this question, I must step back and consider the primary social circle under cultural selection for each era of intentionality.

Of course, every social circle undergoes cultural selection.

Yet, it is crucial to recall which social circles are under more intense selection.

Which social circle stands in the place of interdependence_2b?

In each era, one social circle_2b stands out as the primary site where interdependence_2b emerges from and situates cooperation_1b in the normal context of cultural selection_3b.

0493 For the era of individual intentionality, the band_2b must maintain a balance between power_2H and affiliation_2V in the face of predation_1b.  The normal context is cultural selection_3b, in the always productive tropical forest_3b.

0494 For the era of joint intentionality, the team_2b must balance productivity_2H and having fun_2V in meeting the demands of obligate collaborative foraging_1b.  The normal context is cultural selection_3b, in seasonally and locally productive mixed forest and savannah_3b.

0495 For the era of collective intentionality, the community_2b must balance between something more powerful than productivity_2H and something more worthy of affiliation than having fun_2V.  Tomasello does not name these contributing actualities.  Instead, he covers both with the blanket term, “objective morality”.

Why does this work?

Well, isn’t something that is objectively moral more powerful than productivity and more worthy of affiliation than having fun?

Yeah, why not?

0496 Something that is objectively moral_2b emerges from and situates the potential of competing tribes, migrating due to a varying climate, and settling novel environments and ecologies_1b in the normal context of cultural selection during the Pleistocene_3b. 

0497 I ask, “If the band is a congery of family and intimate relations, at most, and one-person intentionality, in general, then the term, ‘first-person morality’ seems appropriate.  If the team is a web of ‘you-me’ relations and shared intentionality, then the descriptor, ‘second-person’ morality should apply.  If the community is a web of team relations,where ‘you-me’ relations abound and influence the operations of every social circle, then why doesn’t the label, ‘third-person morality’ apply?”

Why use the qualifier, “objective”. 

0498 Tomasello offers Figure 4.1 as an illustration.

Three stick figures dance around the totem that appears in Figure 3.1 (the one that more-or-less says, “We legitimately self-regulate according to our responsibility”).  But, now the triangle is an ellipse that basically says, “We express a collective commitment to right versus wrong”. A double arrow passes between each stick figure.  Then, a single dotted arrow passes from the head of each stick figure to the former triangle, now ellipse.  Then a solid arrow descends to the double arrows between each figure, showing that individual awareness proceeds to the ellipse and the ellipse fortifies the double-arrow binding each “you-me” relation.

I suppose that the triangle, now ellipse, represents objective morality.

0499 I could say that Figure 4.1 illustrates third-person morality because there are three stick figures.  But, that would be a cheap comment.

Instead, I offer an alternate picture, since the two figures in 3.1 represent a “you-me” relation.  Indeed, the two figures in 3.1 now represent every “you-me” relation in all the social circles, but most crucially, the community.

One third-person encompasses the two individuals in each and every “you-me” relation.

0500 Surely, something that is third-person moral is more powerful than productivity and more worthy of affiliation than having fun.

Plus, this third-person can be expressed as a fully grammatical hand-talk statement.

[POINT to self][POINT to others in conversation][PANTOMIME bringing sticks together and tying a string around them][POINT to my lips][POINT to sky]

Of course, the statement is nonsensical.

Perhaps, I can roughly translate the statement as, “We belong to the one who binds us together like sticks, without us knowing why.”

0501 What does the prior blog imply?

As far as hand talk is concerned, the era of joint intentionality corresponds to the evolution of sensible construction and the era of collective intentionality corresponds to the evolution of social construction.

0502 Social construction is not sensible, yet, it leads to sensible constructions that otherwise would have never been imagined using sensible construction alone.  How else can one culturally select for something more powerful than productivity_2H and for something more worthy of affiliation than having fun_2V?  When it comes to communities, mega-bands and tribes, sensible thinking is not enough.

Of course, if this sounds a little crazy, then consider A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah.  Also, consider the complementary views presented in How To Define The Word “Religion”.  Both are available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0503 Meanwhile, know this.  As a man of science, the evolutionary anthropologist, Michael Tomasello, cannot model the natural history of human morality using the imagery of third-person morality.  Why?  The third-person is not “objective, in the modern sense of the word, but “suprasubjective” in the medieval scholastic sense of the word.

For the modern, “objective” is a proposition that holds despite what any of us think of it.  The objective proposition stands outside ourselves.

For the scholastic, “suprasubjective” is a proposition that both contains and transcends the subjectivity (or attitudes of) every one of us.  The suprasubjective proposition resides within and encompasses ourselves.

There is a difference.  Plus, this difference is most apparent with explicit abstraction.

0504 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, hand-talk and hand-speech talk cannot perform explicit abstraction.  They can only facilitate implicit abstraction.  Therefore, long-lived traditions sustain intentional implicit abstractions that, for example, promote the harmony of social circles and select for individuals inclined to cogitate those collective implicit abstractions.  Those inclined are blessed with reproductive success.

So, what am I saying?  Where am I going with all this?

The era of collective intentionality must have the same relational structure as the previous eras.

However, because Tomasello hides what he is trying to discern behind the word, “objective”, the intersection is obscured.

Here is what I expect to see.

The slogan is a sign from a third person.

This slogan presents itself in the milieu of hand talk.

0505 Hand talk is very visual.

Today, railroads are very visual.

So, in order to keep on track, railroads will be my metaphor of choice.  

Imagine that railroads, everything about them, is owned by a third person, and that person talks to us through… um… the meaning, presence and message of… hmmm… trains and rails and schedules and all that stuff.

To this third-person track, I attend.  The following discussion runs on the third-person track through the same academic territory as chapter four, titled “Objective Morality”.   The tracks are as as different as the terms, “objectivity” and “suprasubjectivity”, yet the territory is still the era of collective intentionality.

0506 The third-person track begins with an implicit judgment that becomes embodied during the era of joint attention.  The team and its organizational objectives are inseparable.  They are one thing.

This inseparability coheres to Peirce’s category of secondness.  Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements.  In this case, the real elements are the team and its organizational objectives.  Can I say that the team might associate to having fun_2V and the organizational objectives may associate to productivity_2H?  If so, the contiguity, which stands between the two real elements and therefore gets placed in brackets (for good nomenclature), is the term, [inseparable].

0507 Here is a comparison of the team hylomorphe with Aristotle’s hylomorphe, from which the term, “hylomorphe”, comes.  “Hyle” translates from Greek into English as “matter”.  “Morphe” translates as “form”.

0508 Okay, that will not do.  Let me try a different, more medieval sounding, hylomorphe.

0509 Ah, that is better.  The contiguity, [inseparable], matches the contiguity, [animates].

Of course, this hylomorphe presents a challenge for modern evolutionary anthropologists who hold the Scottish philosopher, David Hume, in high regard.  Only the operations of the team can be observed and measured.  The organizational objective must be inferred.

Does this make sense?

A scientist builds models on the basis of observations and measurements of teams.  So, I suppose that it is easy for the scientist to imagine that these models correspond to organizational objectives.  Such projections are plausible when organizational objectives must be sensible.  In other words, the organizational objectives and the team are [inseparable] in ways that make sense.  [Animates] relies on sensible construction in the era of joint intentionality.

0510 What about the era of collective intentionality?

A community may be regarded as a team of teams.  Each team has a single animating organizational objective.  Can I label this objective, “subject”?  Each team has an animating subject.  When I scale up to the community, an organizational objective contains the objectives of each team as animating subjects.  Can I label this monstrous organizational objective,“subject”?  If I can, then each community has an animating subject that encompasses all the team-subjects and, hopefully, resolves their contradictions.

0511 The slogan, “we work for food”, unfolds into “we work for something more than food”.

The slogan, “we are a web of ‘you-me’ relations” expands into “we are a web of ‘team-team’ relations”.

May I now present a massive parody of Figure 4.1?

Each triangle represents a team.

The third person is the team of teams.