06/16/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 11 of 15)

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.

06/15/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 12 of 15)

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).

0089 Here is a diagram.

06/14/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 13 of 15)

0090 An object_2a comes into being through explicit abstraction. Then, it enters the relational-structure of Hodder’s entanglement theory. There, it_2a is sustained as a content-level actuality through implicit abstraction_1b, within the normal context of cooperation_2b.

In Hodder’s treatment of opium as a thing, both producers (in India) and consumers (in China) are treated as objects_2a 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 West after 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.

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.

06/13/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 14 of 15)

0096 Here is another picture.

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 objects_2a may be treated the same as things_2a. Objects_2a are products of explicit abstraction. Things_2a are not.

0101 Slavery begins in our current Lebenswelt with the objectification of humans.

06/12/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 15 of 15)

0102 Where are we heading?

Where have we been?

Once Hodder’s entanglement theory encounters the hypothesis of the first singularity, everything we know turns inside out. Hodder attempts to generate an explicit abstraction that, given time, will convey the essence of implicit abstraction. The category-based nested form is instrumental in displaying the relational theatrics that Hodder performs.

0103 Hodder is clever.

Things are content level.

Humans are situation level.

A third level, the perspective level, appears as a complication in points 23 to 31. Here is a wrinkle worth exploring. A good place to start is A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0104 My thanks go to Dr. Ian Hodder for opening an inquiry that nudges open the door to a new age of understanding. These comments show that the latch is already unlocked.

0105 Where are we heading?

We are moving towards a fourth age of understanding: The Age of Triadic Relations.

06/9/23

Looking at Betsy DeVos’s Book (2022) “Hostages No More” (Part 1 of 8)

0001 Betsy DeVos serves as the eleventh Secretary of Education of the US Federal Government. She advocates for reform. She speaks for herself. Whether her message is heard by the people is another matter. Her book’s full title is Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child. The publisher is Center Street (Nashville, New York), a division of Hachette Book Group (New York).

0002 Hachette?

Isn’t that French for “tiny axe”?

0003 Well, I have my own little cognitive hatchet. It is called the category-based nested form. I used this tool in the May 2023 blog (www.raziemah.com), Looking at Heather Heying and Bret Weinsteins’s Book (2021) “A Hunter-Gather’s Guide to the 21st Century”.

Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein resigned from modern higher education in 2017 and are now offering guidance, in the form of the Darkhorse podcast. These two were not about to be held hostage by the minions of big government (il)liberalism (BG(il)L: spoken “bigilib”).

Why did these two professors run from the BG(il)L education system?

Perhaps, it no longer teaches critical thinking, unless, of course, one alters the definition of the term, “critical”.

Does “critical” mean “be skeptical” or does it mean “situate by Marxist resentment”? Most people would point to the former, but educators teaching so-called “critical theory” technically indicate the latter.

The April 2023 blog, Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “Parasitic Mind”, educes a three-level interscope where three normal contexts align. Social justice_3c virtually brings critical theory_3b into relation with the potential of social constructivism_3a.

0004 Saad’s reality makes Betsy DeVos’s book intriguing.

Do the nested forms obtained in prior examinations apply to Betsy DeVos’s work?

What does that imply?

That is all I axe.

06/8/23

Looking at Betsy DeVos’s Book (2022) “Hostages No More” (Part 2 of 8)

0005 How to begin?

Here is how Looking at Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein’s Book (2021) The Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21^stCentury ends. A BG(il)L education system may be depicted as a two-level interscope. The two level interscope is introduced in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues). A two-level interscope associates to sensible construction.

0006 On the content level, the normal contexts of individual and institutional development_3a bring the actuality of certification_2a into relation with the potential of ‘personal and government motivations’_1a. Note that the individual and the institution belong to the normal context_3a and potential_1a, implying that the individual adopts motivations promulgated by the state. There is word for the condition where a person adopts the motivations of a governmental system in order to get ahead (in this case, certified_2a). Dare I say the colloquial version of that word?

0007 On the situation level, the normal context of individual and cultural selection_3b brings the actuality of specialization_2b into relation with the potential of ’employment’_1b. This implies that ‘a job’ conveys the potential of the entire content level nested form. What might be an alternative? How about ‘character development’?

With that idea in mind, take a look at the normal context_3b once again. Both individual and cultural selection_2b endeavor to fill specialized_2b jobs_1b with individuals willing to (dare I say the word?) to government systems in order to get ahead. Perhaps, I can call the process, “unnatural selection”.

0008 Who would volunteer to become hostages… er… collaborators to such a system?

Betsy DeVos’s political adversaries.

Indeed, they would volunteer every child to become a hostage in their BG(il)L system. After all, being a hostage is good for them. Being a hostage turns them into collaborators (rather than sovereign individuals). Being a hostage_2a is the pathway to getting a job_1b.

0009 The BG(il)L system is not about character development, which requires guidance. It is all about expertise, which requires instruction. Experts are specialists_2b. Experts are certified_2a to participate in particular occupations_1b. Specializations_2b virtually situate certification_2a.

The two-level operation appears sensible. DeVos talks about mastery of subject. Is that the same as expertise? These terms belong to a level that does not appear in the above figures. The perspective level only becomes visible when the content and situation levels fail. Is the above sensible construction failing? Well, I already know that it fails anyone who does not want to conform their personal motivations_1a to the desires of the state_1a in order to get a job_1b.

0010 Does this fit with DeVos’s storyline?

I think so. DeVos writes as if she holds a perspective-level solution to mandatory BG(il)L education systems. Subject mastery_2c is not the same as expertise_2c.

06/7/23

Looking at Betsy DeVos’s Book (2022) “Hostages No More” (Part 3 of 8)

0011 The prior blog provides a glimpse into the perspective-level actuality_2c that contextualizes America’s established BG(il)L education system. Here is how experties_2c fits into the picture.

0012 The perspective-level normal context_3c and potential_1c are not obvious. The perspective-level actuality_2c is.

Expertise_2c virtually brings specialization_2b into relation with the potential of certification_2a. This is obvious.

The perspective-level normal context_3c and potential_1c are not so obvious, because the situation- and content-level normal contexts, as well as the potentials, confound the individual, the institution and the government.

0013 Here is a picture.

0014 The perspective-level virtually brings the situation-level into relation with the potential of the content-level. In this instance, “virtual” could mean either “in simulation” (the modern option) or “in virtue” (the scholastic option).

0015 For actuality, expertise_2c virtually brings specializations_2b into relation with the potential of certification_2a.

For the column of normal contexts, a BG(il)L perspective_3c virtually brings individual and cultural selection_3b into relation with the potentials of individual and institutional development_3a. The perspective-level normal context_3c must embody the government_1a that appears in the content-level potential_1a. The normal context_3c also must set the stage for cultural selection_3b, in regards to both individuals (who are selected for specialization_2b) and institutions (who are selected for providing the education leading to certification_2a).

Betsy DeVos says, over and over, that the Federal Department of Education is concerned about institutions (such as colleges, school districts, administrators and unionized teachers), rather than students. They are interested in processes that provide instructions leading to certification (for students motivated to fit into an already established menu of specializations). They could not care less about what students really need. They presume that students need to conform to their programs, their goals and their definition of what students must know in order to acquire certification.

0016 What label applies to the perspective-level normal context_3c?

Would the term, “big government”, suffice?

0017 The perspective-level potential_1c virtually contextualizes jobs_1b, while jobs_1b virtually situate personal and governmental motivations_1a. What is the nature of this perspective-level potential_1c? First, it defines jobs_1b through regulatory controls. For example, a government may decree that only certain specializations_2b (which much be certified_2a) are allowed to perform certain tasks… er… jobs_1b. Second, governmental motivations_1a are taken for granted by people motivated_1a to become specialized_2b in order to obtain well-defined jobs_1b.

In other words, the government maintains regulatory control of the situation (jobs_1b) while providing the appearance that the individual is free to choose his or her own destiny (personal motives_1a). In the process, government motivations_1a are simply taken for granted and not contested. After all, it would not be sensible to contest government motivations_1a. Most students and parents have no clue that their ambitions are pursued in conformity with government agendas.

0018 What label applies to the perspective-level potential_1c?

Would the term, “(il)liberal”, do the trick?

Well, what does (il)liberal mean?

Liberalism elevates individual autonomy… say, sovereignty… above various authorities, including religious institutions, businesses, civic networks, military organizations, governments, and so forth. So, the prefix, (il), is hidden because there is an unacknowledged exception. The government is excepted. So, (il)liberalism provides the appearance of individual autonomy while maintaining government regulatory control.

The virtual nested form in firstness says, “(Il)liberalism_1c virtually brings jobs_1b into relation with the potentials of personal and governmental motivations_1a.”

0019 Here is the perspective-level nested form for BG(il)L education.

06/6/23

Looking at Betsy DeVos’s Book (2022) “Hostages No More” (Part 4 of 8)

0020 Here is a picture of what Betsy Devos faces when she is appointed the head of the federal Department of Education.

0021 Once again, (il)liberalism provides the feeling of individual autonomy (where the individual is sovereign) while simultaneously creating the conditions (because the state is sovereign) that big-government directed processes (such as, certification) are mandated.

0022 This produces an awkward realization.

If students are hostages to BG(il)L education systems, then they are because their captors_3a are themselves hostages_3b to the normal context of big government_3c.

As such, the captors_3b, who are also hostages to big government_3c, want institutional development_3a to be the key aspect of the content-level normal context, rather than individual development_3a. They must project the illusion that institutional development_3a translates into individual development_3a. In other words, individual development_3a is held hostage to institutional development_3a.

0023 Will this change with the political implementation of education freedom?

Well, allow me to replace two elements in the previous interscope.

Educational initiatives_3c becomes the perspective-level normal context.

Freedom_1c becomes the perspective-level potential.

0024 Here is a diagram with the substitution.

0025 Is this the vision of Betsy DeVos?

No wonder the knives are out at the Department of Education, the school unions, and the corporate media.

0026 BG_3c(il)L_1c must not be replaced by state intiatives_3c and educational freedom_1c.

On one hand, to certain stakeholders, big government_3c is supposed to take the initiative_1c in actualizing the importance of expertise_2c.

On the other hand, Betsy DeVos sees states and localities as the ones determining the perspective-level normal context. Throughout the book, she cites example after example of states and localities creating and maintaining educational initiatives_3c. Plus, there is no mandate for education listed in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. So, the federal government has no warrant for intervention in the field of education. Except, of course, as a ploy to get President Jimmy Carter re-elected.

0027 So, I know where the Department of Education stands in regards to where BG_3c(il)L_1c ought to be.

06/5/23

Looking at Betsy DeVos’s Book (2022) “Hostages No More” (Part 5 of 8)

0028 State and local initiatives_3c contextualize a perspective-level actuality_2c that manifests the potential of educational freedom_1c.

0029 What is freedom_1c and how is it different from (il)liberalism_1c?

(Il)liberalism_1c maintains regulatory control while promoting the appearance of individual autonomy.

Freedom_1c requires the person to take initiatives in the face of uncertainty.

0030 What do I mean by freedom_1c?

The virtual nested form in the realm of potential says, “The normal context of educational freedom_1c brings the actuality of one’s occupation_1b into relation with the potential of ‘both personal motivations and the perspective-level normal context of educational initiatives’_1a.”

What is a one word label for the perspective-level normal context of local initiatives_1c projecting motivational awareness into the content-level potential_1a?

Does the term, “empowerment”, apply?

0031 Uh-oh, Betsy DeVos now replaces three elements in the interscope of BG_3c(il)L_1c education.

0032 Obviously, DeVos’s use of the term, “empowerment”, does not coincide with its use the normal context of big-government_3c. For BG(il)L, “empowerment” conveys the illusion of individual autonomy within the (hidden) normal context of regulatory control.

0033 When a parent and a student hear the word, “empowerment”, they imagine that there is only one meaning to the term. Is that not the way that spoken words work? Words are placeholders in a system of differences. One cannot have one placeholder in two systems of differences.

Or… can one?

Obviously, the meaning of the word, “empowerment”, depends on whether the perspective-level normal context is the Department of Education’s big government_3c or Betsy DeVos’s creative initiatives_3c.

0034 Is this some sort of language game?

Betsy DeVos made a move, substituting a new terms in for three elements of the BG(il)L interscope.

What are her opponents, the devotees of BG(il)L, going to do?

0035 What is the opposite of freedom?

How about slavery?

Slavery is a system where every person is certain to have a job. It is the ultimate act of equal employment. Slavery is the ultimate occupation in terms of certainty, even though no one wants the jobs.

0036 What does this imply?

Freedom associates to uncertainty.

Slavery associates to certainty.

BG(il)L offers the facade of individual autonomy while retaining regulatory control.

BG(il)L offers the facade of freedom while keeping the subject a slave.

BG(il)L offers, in a world filled with uncertainty, certainty.

If you get the certificate_2a, then you will get a job_1b that shows that you belong to a profession_2b. That is certainty_1c.

BG(il)L initiatives_3c cultivate certainty_1c and job security_1b.

Betsy DeVos’s initiatives_3c create uncertainty_1c and jobs that are not defined by federal regulations_1b.

0037 Here is a picture of how the manipulative permanent members of the Department of Education respond to the establishment-challenging rhetoric of Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of the Department of Education.

Power must be restored to the bureaucrats,.

0038 What does this back and forth imply?

In the imperial capital, it is all a game of words. Each technical term, such as “empowerment” and “freedom”, has one meaning in the interscope of BG(il)L_3c and another meaning in the interscope of Betsy DeVos_3c, the eleventh Secretary at the Department of Education.

0039 The three-level interscope is the game board.

Betsy DeVos makes a move.

The establishment counters.