0060 I now enter disciplinary territory that Professor Saad cannot go, because it currently stands outside his academic turf of evolutionary psychology.
Why is the turf of evolutionary psychology so limited?
Remember evolutionary psychology arises as a biological discipline, attempting to account for models proposed by cognitive psychology in terms of natural selection, adaptation and niche.
0061 However, what if the ultimate (not proximate) human niche is the potential of traidic relations, as proposed in Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche (available at smashwords and other e-book venues)?
Then, the discipline of evolutionary psychology expands, because triadic relations participate in so many human adaptations. Models proposed by cognitive psychology describe only a small fraction of human behaviors in our current Lebenswelt. Imagine the wealth of material, since the start of writing, waiting to be diagrammed in terms of triadic relations. These diagrams would be subject matter for an expanded discipline of evolutionary psychology. And, that is just the start.
For example, in Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us?, Razie Mah proposes that the three-level interscope may serve as a way to describe langue (that is, what goes on in our minds when we talk).
Consequently, a completed three-level interscope is intellectually satisfying. Once a three level interscope is complete, no element stands empty.
0062 But, there is more than one meaning to the term, “empty”.
Saad’s designation of the nouvelle academy as “ostrich parasitic syndrome” implies three types of emptiness. Each word associates to a type of emptiness.
0063 The first emptiness comes from the actuality2a that a personal choice must be made. A human will1a is not relevant unless it is decisive. Is that the case? According to orthodox views3a, human will has to work with what nature and God provides1a. Males are men2a. Females are women2a. The will of God1a stands in the emptiness of the actuality2a of social construction3a.
0064 The second emptiness comes from the fact that the oppressor2b is the host and the oppressed2b is the parasite, in the virtual normal context of a privileged status for the oppressed2c. This emptiness is filled by the obvious meaning of the terms, “oppressor” and “oppressed”. The parasite expresses an inversion of meaning.
0065 The third emptiness comes from the perspective level, where the normal context social justice3c brings the actuality of privileged status for the oppressed2c into relation with the potential of protection (that is, a safe space)1c. Saad uses the metaphor of the ostrich, a large-bodied but small-brained bird that refuses to see what it does not want to see.
0066 The new academy denies that there is a world outside the three-level interscope that empowers them.
0067 Consider the virtual nested form in the realm of normal contexts.
Figure 17
0068 The normal context of social justice2c virtually brings the actuality of critical theory3b into relation with the potential of social construction3a.
To me, this virtual nested form describes the institution3aC of the College of Social Construction.
Likewise, the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality portrays the organizational objectives2aC of the new academy.
Finally, the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility depicts the righteousness1aC of the nouvelle academy.
0069 The College of Social Construction is an institution.
What are institutions?
Here is a picture of the contenta-level of the societyC tier, appearing in the chapter on presence in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
Figure 18
0070 Saad does not know this figure. His expertise does not include “institutions”. So, he cannot articulate the social nature of the new academy.
0071 At first, the inquirer may think that each of the virtual nested forms already discussed might overlap with the three elements of the figure. In a sense, each does. The virtual nested form in the category of thirdness may be placed over institution3aC. The virtual nested form in the category of secondness may cover the organizational objectives2aC. The virtual nested form in the category of firstness may be set on top of the potential of ‘righteousness’1aC.
0072 On second thought, the entire three-level interscope of the new academy could enter the slot for the organizational objective2aC.
Recall, Saad’s term, “parasite”, corresponds to the situation-level actuality2b of the interscope. Here, the parasitic self-identifying “oppressed”2b draws substance from its host, involuntarily labeled as “oppressor”2b. I now can imagine what that substance is. It is righteousness1aC.
0073 So, here is my guess as to the resulting nested form.
In the normal context of the new academy3aC, the actuality of the entire three-level interscope of social justice, critical theory and social contruction2aC emerges from (and situates) the potential of a righteousness that simultaneously draws upon and rejects orthodox views, like the righteousness of an ostrich not facing what it does not want to see, like the righteousness of parasite feeding off of its host1aC, and the righteousness of just being better than orthodox scientists and philosophers1aC.
Here is the institution of the College of Social Construction.
Figure 19
0074 Uh oh. If the potential is a righteousness that is drawn from orthodox views, like a parasite feeding off of its host1aC, then why do I write the potential of ‘signaling the virtues the human will… er… of the self-identifying oppressed… er… I mean to say, the virtues of the new world order’1aC?
0075 I left off the previous blog with a question.
How does one describe the righteousness1aC underlying the postmodern university3aC?
Here are some candidates.
Figure 20
0076 One key to Saad’s nomenclature of “parasite” is that one person can self-identify as “oppressed”2b, while the other person is labeled, without self-acknowledgement, as “oppressor”2b. The former is the parasite. The latter is the host. Parasites survive by getting around the defenses of the host.
The academics expressing the “ostrich parasitic syndrome” survive by repackaging (or “mimicking”) select orthodox views3a while rejecting other orthodox views3a. Thus, the postmodern know-it-all celebrates the critically evaluated3bdistinction between “oppressed”2b and “oppressor”2b, while decrying the divinely-appointed (as well as naturally selected) biological distinction1 between men and women2.
0077 Now, take a look at the above figure.
0078 Does the reader see an inconsistency?
How can the righteousness1aC underlying the multiversity3aC simultaneously signal the virtues of the human will1aC and the new world order1aC?
Well, righteousness1aC belongs to category of firstness. The logic of firstness is inclusive and allows contradictions. So, a contradiction does not really exist, because, in the normal context of the new academy3aC,the virtues of the human will1aC and the virtues of the new world order1aC belong to the same sea of possibilities1aC.
0079 Here is one way to appreciate the two apparently conflicting sets of virtues bound in the same sea of possibility1aC, which I call, the potential of ‘signaling virtue’1aC.
The righteousness that signals the virtue of the human will1aC sustains the actuality on the content level2aC.
The righteousness that signals the virtue of the new world order1aC virtually empowers the potential on the situation level1bC.
0080 Here is a picture.
Figure 21
0081 In short, the righteousness1aC that underlies the three-level interscope2aC, in the normal context of the new academy3aC, potentiates two sets of virtues: the first set celebrates the human will1aC and the second set calls for an order1bC that accomplishes all the other aspects of righteousness1aC. The other aspects are listed above.
0082 The next question?
Who can deliver the powers to reconstitute orthodox virtues into attributes of the “oppressed”, to reconstitute orthodox shames into attributes of the “oppressor” and to enforce the privileges obtained by self-identification as “oppessed”?
Here is a picture of the two-level interscope for the societyC tier.
Figure 22
0084 The postmodern academy3aC calls for sovereign acts and decrees2bC to enforce its organizational objectives2aC. In particular, the state2bC must mandate the privileges(2c)2aC of those who self-identify as “oppessed”(2b)2aC. Plus, the state2bC must force the unwanted identification of “oppressors”(2b)2aC, upon people who do not self-identify with the label.
Also, the state2bC must support the postmodern academy3aC in its promotion and promulgation of the normal contexts of social constructionism(3a)2aC, critical theory(3b)2aC and social justice(3c)2aC.
0085 This is the demand. Sovereign power2bC must favor the new academy3aC against people who stupidly and ignorantly attempt to situate orthodox viewscontra3a(2aC).
0086 A divided world is subject to war.
In chapter one, Gad Saad describes scary episodes typical for a divided world. The first set of episodes occurs in the Lebenese civil war. The second set of episodes belongs to the war between postmodernism and modernism taking place on college campuses in the North America and Europe.
0087 Saad defines himself in a particular fashion.
Definition?
According to How To Define The Word “Religion”,the normal context of definition3 brings the actuality of a spoken term(in this case, Professor Gad Saad)2 into relation with the potential of meaning, presence and message1.
Here is a picture.
Figure 23
0088 Dr. Gad Saad is an actuality2 that emerges from the potentials of meaning, presence and message1 in the normal context of definition3. The message1 is freedom1. The presence1 is truth1. The meaning1 is located in chapter seven, concerning the nomological methods of cumulative evidence.
Evidence2 is the basis for theory1, in the normal context of scientific inquiry3. Professionally, Dr. Saad applies concepts in evolutionary psychology to observations and measurements of cognitive psychology. The evidence comes from cognitive psychology. The nomological methods come from biology.
0089 According to Saad’s testimony in chapter one, he encounters the content-level normal context of social construction3a(2aC) in the 1990s, when he moves to Cornell for graduate studies. He specializes in the application of evolutionary psychology to consumer behavior.
Even at this time, publications in consumer research journals are not scientific or philosophical. They are postmodern. They promote the idea that social construction3a(2aC)arises from the human will1a(2aC)and defines who the person chooses to be2a(2aC).Consumers socially construct their realities.
Saad comes to awareness of an organization objective2aC, that contains social construction3a and celebrates radical individualism1a.
Consumer research journals in the 1990s are already postmodern. Their authors are already located in universities and research centers that are supported by grants from the federal government. The journals promote the concept of social construction3a(2aC) as the legitimate normal context for consumer research. All other approaches are irrelevant.
0091 Professor Saad’s dedicates his academic career to showing that evolutionary psychology offers another relevant approach. For this, he witnesses other professors display outrage. Saad shows them what they are not supposed to see.
In chapter seven, Saad expresses confidence that the methodology inherent in nomological evidence1will demonstrate that social constructivism3a(2aC) is bunk.
In doing so, raises a question about consumer behavior.
What is consumer behavior?
0092 Saad’s answer is that consumer behavior works according to (once) content-level orthodox views.
But, now, “right doctrine3a” applies to questions such as, “What is the best way to purchase an automobile?”
0092 Here is a picture of Saad’s vision of consumer research, which stands opposed to the ideology of social constructionism3a(2aC).
Figure 24
0093 In chapter eight, Saad issues a call to action.
Students should turn away from the following postmodern paradigm in consumer research.
Figure 25
0094 Okay, Saad’s call to action is far broader than that.
Why?
I already know that the ideology of social constuctionism3b wants to take over the content level, the subject of inquiry, and replace it3a with… itself3b.
Saad is on target.
From the start, social constructivism3b is not a legitimate science, because it produces its situation-level actuality2b on the basis of an ideological commitment1b.
Then, once it takes over the content level, social constructivism3a expresses a philosophical commitment to radical individualism1a. Radical individualism is not a rational philosophy. It extols human will. It neglects human reason.
0095 These comments on Saad’s book raise additional reasons.
Social constructivism3a(2aC) becomes an organizational objective2aC that calls individuals in communityA to join organizationsB that fulfill a need in our current Lebenswelt1aC. But, that “need” may not be in the adaptive interests of the individual in communityA. Rather, the “need” may serve the righteousness1aC of a postmodern corporation3aC.
Social construction3a(2aC) is the content-level of a larger organizational objective2aC, which encompasses a three-level interscope. This larger organizational objective2aC calls for sovereign power in order to sustain its institutions3aC and to promote and enforce its righteousness1aC. In short, the College of Social Construction may be defined as a sovereign religion.
0096 In the last blog, the reader may have noticed a subtle shift in the representation of the potential of the content-level in the quest for a right doctrine3a for inquiry into consumer behaviors2a.
Recall, evolutionary psychology is the situation level for Dr. Saad. Social construction is the situation level for postmodern academics conducting research on consumer behaviors (but really, it serves as the content level of postmodern inquiry into the human will to consume1a.)
0097 Here is a comparison of the content levels for the two situations.
Figure 26
Ah, the potentials are obviously different.
0098 Evolutionary psychology3b strives to account for observations of modern consumer behaviors2a in terms of scientific models2b, presuming that human behaviors are influenced by adaptations to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in1a.
0099 Social construction3b strives to account for… well… not account for… but to establish that needs inour current Lebenswelt1a, underlying consumer behaviors2a, are fulfilled by the exercise of human will1b. All other accounts are irrelevant. Each purchase is a personal choice2b.
0100 Hmmm. Say again. What is the difference?
Evolutionary psychology3b interprets evidence in cognitive psychology1b in terms of adaptations in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in1a.
Social construction3a interprets all human behaviors, in our current Lebenswelt2a, as exercises of human will1b.
0101 What does this imply?
Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
0102 This is one insight that may prove of value to scientists and modern philosophers.
The Lebenswelt that we evolved in cannot be declared irrelevant, even while admitting the primacy of human will in our current Lebenswelt, the key potential of social constructionism, with its commitment to radical individualism.
0103 How so?
0104 Consider Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big, an e-book by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
For the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, Dunbar’s headline claim is that the neocortex size is roughly proportional to group size. The neocortex size for anatomically modern humans corresponds to a group size of 150. Yet, the book by Gamble, Gowlett and Dunbar say more than the headline. Hominins live in social circles within that community size of 150. Indeed, an evolutionary psychologist would expect that cultural adaptations within each social circle would increase the reproductive success of participating individuals. Since social circles are like nested Russian dolls, evolutionary psychologists further anticipate adaptations that increase the harmony among social circles.
0105 For our current Lebenswelt, civilization may be initially described as historic differentiations leading to the following category-based nested form: The normal context of societyC brings the actuality of organizationsB into relation with the potential of individuals in communityA.
0106 Here is a picture of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in compared to our current Lebenswelt.
Figure 27
0107 For evolutionary psychology, orthodox views3a are going to be influenced by hominin adaptations into social circles of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, even though, in our current Lebenswelt, a differentiated dynamic is in play. Indeed, social construction(3a)2aC, along with critical theory(3b)2aC and social justice(3c)2ab, constitute an organizational objective2aC in the societyC tier that interpellates individuals in communityA to enter organizationsB, either willingly (by voluntarily identifying onself as “oppressed”(2b)2aC) or unwillingly (by involuntarily being assigned the label of “oppressor”(2b)2aC).
0108 Professor Saad does not touch on the above, because this discussion extends beyond his expertise in evolutionary psychology pertinent to consumer behaviors.
These comments add value to Dr. Saad’s argument by explicitly posing how social construction(3a)2aC (which applies to our current Lebenswelt) cannot fully exclude evolutionary psychology3b (which applies lessons about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in to our current Lebenswelt).
0109 What if human will in our current Lebenswelt is influenced by innate tendencies that are adaptations to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
Then, social constructivism3a should not ignore that reality (rather than displace that reality beneath its own occupation of the content level of inquiry).
Then, critical theory3b cannot situate the actuality of identity as personal choice2a according to the potential of a system1bunderlying a manichaean division between “oppressed”2b and “oppressor”2b.
Also, social justice(3c)2aC cannot properly contextualize the division between “oppressed”(2b)2aC and “oppressor”(2b)2aC with the potential of protection(1c)2aC, because the demand for protection(1c)2aC may itself be an innate adaptive response to the existence of a system(1b)2aC that pretends to be an evolved social circle.
0110 Even weirder, what if the organizational objective2aC of the postmodern academy3aC, arising from the righteousness of radical individualism, marxist worldviews, and big government (il)liberalism1aC, is, as Dr. Saad claims, a self-deceiving parasitic syndrome?
What if the organizational objective2aC triggers susceptible individuals to identify as “oppressed”(2b)2aC because the privileges(2c)2aC of social justice(3c)2aC coincide with what one expects from participating in harmonious social circles?
0111 Wouldn’t that be freaky?
It is like drinking the Flavor-Aid.
0112 These comment bring the arguments in Dr. Gad Saad’s book into a strange revelation.
The reason why Dr. Saad is the target of animosity from colleagues in the postmodern multiversity unites with his chosen topic of expertise, evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology applies lessons about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in to our current Lebenswelt.
In doing so, it raises post-postmodern questions concerning the adaptive natures of human will(1a)2aC, systems(1b)2aC and protection(1c)2aC and their maladaptive expressions in our current Lebenswelt.
Plus, none of these topics can be discussed in the College of Social Construction.
0113 My thanks to Professor Saad for his excellent work.
0114 Our curent Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Cheers for an expanded range of inquiry for evolutionary psychology.
The three masterworks of Razie Mah offer a treasure trove for those interested in human evolution: The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall, and How To Define the Word “Religion”.
These are all available as electronic books. Just search for the author’s name, Razie Mah, along with the title.
0115 A Course on the Human Niche is a series, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, containing the masterwork, a primer, and commentaries, including the following.
Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big
Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of The Mind
Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us?
Comments on Derek Bickerton’s Book (2014) More Than Nature Needs
Any literate adult can conduct a seminar class that reads and discusses these works.
0116 Another series, titled Buttressing the Human Niche, contains comments on articles and books on the topic of human evolution.
Here is a sample.
Comments on David McNeill’s Book (2012) How Language Began
Comments on David Reich’s Book (2018) Who We Are and How We Got Here
Comments on Christ Sinha’s Essay (2018) “Praxis, Symbols and Language”
Comments on Kim Sterelny’s Essay (2011) “From Hominins to Humans”
Comments on John Barrett and Krystalli Amilati’s Essay (2004) “Some Light on the Early Origins of Them All”
Comments on Stella Souvatzi, Adnan Baysal and Emma Baysal’s Essay (2019) “Is there Prehistory?”
These works may be purchased at smashwords and other e-book venues. They explore topics and demonstrate the practice of association and implication. They are ideal for throwing into an established study (or curriculum) on human evolution, in order to demonstrate the realness of triadic relations. Triadic relations are real enough to constitute a niche.
0117 Finally, the Razie Mah’s blog at www.raziemah.com looks at other publications. Each “looking at” blog consists of one to twenty parts. These may be used to spread the word, for enjoyment, discussion and erudition.
For example, the following appears in March 2021
Looking at Daniel Turbon’s Article (2020) “…Human Being in Evolution”
In May 2021
Looking at Chris Sinha’s Essay (2018) “Praxis, Symbol and Language”
0118 Currently, evolutionary psychology is narrowly practiced as an adjunct to cognitive psychology. Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain findings, models and evidence from cognitive psychology in terms of natural selection in the environment of evolutionary adaptation.
Now comes the Course on the Human Niche, Buttressing of the Human Niche, and other productions by Razie Mah,proposing that the ultimate human niche is the potential of triadic relations.
Yes, humans also evolve into very many proximate niches. But, all our proximate niches are bundled together by our ultimate niche. Proximate niches are like the various wooden rods bound together in the ancient Roman artifact called “religio”. This artifact serves as a metaphor for the human’s ultimate niche. Our ultimate niche binds all adaptations into proximate niches together.
0119 Professor Gad Saad’s book takes the reader outside of a narrow and closed practice of evolutionary psychology. However, since Saad does not know the hypothesis of the ultimate human niche, he cannot cross from complaining and demanding action to a wide-open practice of evolutionary psychology. Thus, he cannot fully comprehend what he is encountering in postmodern academics and elsewhere. He is moving towards a realization. It is just around the corner.
A wide-open evolutionary psychology examines our current Lebenswelt through the lens of adaptations accrued in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
That revolution in thought begins with Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche.
0001 Last month, the Razie Mah blog presented the end of Comments on David Graeber and David Wengrow’s Book (2021) “The Dawn of Everything” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues). The blog is titled Looking at Graeber and Wengrow’s Chapter (2021) “The State Has No Origins”.
The question arises, “Does the weird confounded diagram developed in this commentary have relevance to other inquiries covering the human condition in our current Lebenswelt?”
0002 This blog offers an answer, by way of example.
Three years before the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation of Aquarius, Athina Karatzogianni and Andrew Robinson publish an article in the Journal of International Political Theory (2017, Vol. 13(3) 282-295). The British scholars are experts in communication and sociology. Thier article investigates the role of anarchy… er, “anarchy”… in state securitization.
0003 The weird and confounded diagram that appears in the commentary on Graeber and Wengrow’s book looks like this.
Figure 01
The goal of this blog is to briefly review Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article and to demonstrate that a derivation of this figure maps onto the topic.
0004 What is this article about?
The full title is Schizorevolutions versus Microfascisms: The fear of anarchy in state securitisation. Needless to say, the terms are specialized descriptors. But of what?
0005 According to the above figure, academics may confound the state2b with sovereign acts and decrees2bC. The “state”2b is defined. What is defintion? Definition3 is the normal context bringing the actuality of a spoken word2 into relation with the potential of meaning, presence and message1.
The state2b‘ is a term arising from the presence of domination1b‘. But, domination2a must also be defined. The term, “domination”2a, emerges from (and situates) the possibilities inherent in the sole legitimate use of violence (similar to presence)1a’, the administration of information (like meaning)1a and the promotion and guidance of charismatic influence(like message)1a. I call policing, bureaucracy and maintaining reputation, “the three imperatives1a“. The three imperatives1a underlie domination2a.
0006 Here is a picture of the way that Graeber and Wengrow define “state”. This is the path of definition (P).
Figure 02
0007 The way of differentiation is developed in the chapter on presence in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues). Even though the differentiation of an originary, undifferentiated, social world follows the logic of Peirce’s categories, the process is also historic. Since the start of our current Lebenswelt, the societyC, organizationB and individuals in communityA have historically differentiated into three tiers of interscopes. As a result, realization of the two types of religion, corresponding to organizational objects2aC and a relational object2cC, follows the logic of the differentiation of category-based nested forms and occurs in history.
Here is a picture of the three-level interscope for the societyC tier. This is the path of differentiation (Q).
Figure 03
0008 Needless to say, neither Graeber and Wengrow nor Karatzogioanni and Robinson are aware of the the path of differentiation. So, they are not aware that they confound P and Q.
For example, in the introduction, the latter authors suggest that the securitisation discourse (the administration of information, P21a) by the state2b’ arises from the perception of “new threats” (charismatic influence outside of state supervision, P31a) and attempts to fix network flows (through violence, P11a). This also means that the normal context of sovereign power3bC brings the actuality of sovereign acts and decrees2bC into relation with the potential for ‘order’1bC. However, now sovereign power2bC is confounded with definition3b. The state2b is mixed up with sovereign acts and decrees2bC. Plus, ‘domination’1b is entangled with ‘order’1bC.
0009 Here is a picture of how the confounding seems to play out.
Figure 04
0010 Karatzogianni and Robinson immediately go on to say that their argument is based on a distinction between states and networks. Furthermore networks divide into two forms, such as affinity-active and non-affiliating-reactive, as well as between schizoid (non-affiliating active) and paranoic (non-affiliating reactive). Then, they discuss the ramifications in detail.
To me, the distinction between the state2b and its domination2a of organizational objectives2aC of insitutions3aCredefines3b institutions3aC as networks3a. Order1bC melds with efforts to control the content level1b. While “order” sounds legitimate. “Control” does not.
Order1bC establishes peace among instituions3aC working2aC independently based on their own righteousness1aC. Plus, that righteousness1aC does not pay tribute to the perspective level actuality2bC of fear.
Control1b envisions threats emanating from the open space of active desire1aC and aims to moderate these through domination2a (using P1, P2 and P3 of the three imperatives underlying the definition3a of domination2a). Consequently, attempts2b to supervise2b and narrow the space1b of righteousness1aC, sanction2b and outlaw2b objectsorg2aC, and wage war2b on institutions3aC that do not conform to state2b control1b expand into the fabric of everyday life.
0011 The state’s2b acts and decrees2bC are not oriented to protecting civilians or non-state actors. So, the normal context is not sovereignty3bC, but a defining power3b (responsible to a higher loyalty2cC, so to speak). Yet, this defining power3bspeaks the language of sovereignty3bC, just as Graeber and Wengrow do.
0012 But, who is doing the defining here?
Look at the perspective-level actuality2cC.
Fear2cC is not an emotion. Fear2cC is a demiurge, a relational object, an object that brings everyone into relation.
