0065 Here is the first picture of cultural equilibrium after 2017.
Figure 25
In this cultural equilibrium, administrators2H, not faculty, adapt to the niche of an education system composed of instructors1H. Heying and Weinstein depart.
Here is a picture of how I configure the normal context3 and potential1 for the single actuality of higher education (after 2017)2.
Figure 26
0066 Where do Heying and Weinstein migrate to?
They enter another cultural equilibrium, discussed before, where professors adapt to the challenge of applying the lessons of biological evolution to life in the 21st century. The metaphorical genome of podcasting are individuals who sense that our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. We are adapted to the lifestyle of hunters and gatherers. But, that is not all, we are also adapted to the potential of triadic relations.
Here is a picture of a new single actuality2, guidance.
Figure 27
0067 Here is a picture of how I configure the normal context3 and potential1 for the single actuality of guidance (after 2017)2.
Figure 28
0068 Listening to a darkhorse podcast is more rewarding to a team of moderns (remember hunters and gatherers work in teams) than attending a formal lecture by an instructor who is grading on the curve. How so? The darkhorse podcast is a conversation geared to draw people into conversation. In the course of conversation, one learns information and how to be a member of a team. If one becomes a member of the podcast community, one joins the team.
The cost is small, compared to a college course.
0069 The exorbitant cost of higher education pays tribute to the long-held belief that certification opens the door to professionalism.
So, what happens when podcasts offer alternate certification?
Then, guidance2 will directly compete with higher education2.
0069 Chapter three (Ancient Bodies, Modern World) completes the author’s theoretical approach, which has been critiqued, using the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce. The authors are not aware of a novel vision that encompasses their view that biological evolution involves adaptation into proximate niches of material conditions. The ultimate human niche is the potential of triadic relations. Why are hominins capable of switching proximate niches? All proximate niches are perfused with signs.
Heying and Weinstein are not alone in this regard. Few modern biologists (before 2023) have considered Razie Mah’s three masterworks, The Human Niche, An Archeology of the Fall, and How To Define the Word “Religion”, that pertain to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the first singularity, and our current Lebenswelt, respectively.
Yet, even without a well-articulated theoretical framework, Heying and Weinstein can draw lessons from biological evolution as it is currently configured, as if adaptations2H and phenotypes2V belong to the separate disciplines of natural history and genetics, and no one is quite sure how they belong to a single actuality.
Plus, disciplinary knowledge in biological evolution is superior to advocacy, in the same manner that a professor is superior to an instructor.
0070 Our bodies evolved in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Our modern world in the 21st century is a hypernovel episode of our current Lebenswelt.
So, lessons from our biological evolution will show how our modern world is not so good for our ancient bodies.
0071 The remaining chapters contain applications.
Chapter four (medicine) applies guidance to the topic of medicine.
Figure 29
And, the cultural intersection looks like the following.
Figure 30
0072 At the end of chapter four, the authors offer a section called, “The Corrective Lens”, in which they encapsulate their guidance on medicine.
0073 For purposes of this examination, I will look closely at chapter five (Food).
Figure 31
0074 Guidance2, the intersection of professors2H and podcasting2V, enters into the nested form of postmodern internet education3 and situates the possibility of the authors’ disciplinary expertise along with their mission (which is to join your team at the same time that you join theirs)1.
0075 The chapter starts with two warnings. First, there is no fixed recipe as to what to eat. Second, food is not merely nutrition for survival. Eating food occasions social engagement. Yes, cooking is important. So, is eating with others. Know the culinary habits of your lineage.
Here is a picture of what the authors are offering.
Figure 32
0076 Here is how they proceed. Place food2 in the place for species2 as the single actuality2 that is composed of adaptation2H and phenotype2V. Then, consider the following intersection from more than one point of view.
Figure 33
0077 The first adaptation2H that comes to mind is cooking with fire2H. What does fire do to raw food? Elevated temperatures break down cellular and structural impediments to digestion. Cooked food provides more calories than raw.
The corresponding phenotype2V includes changes in the ways that we perceive flavors. Cooked food tastes good. But, that is not all. Cooking offers an occasion for everyone to eat together and talk. In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in,humans practice hand talk, which means that no one talks while eating raw food. But, with cooked food, one does not have to eat and eat and eat and chew and chew and chew to get nutrition. Plus, cooked food tastes better! Plus, afterwards, everyone can sit around the fire and enjoy conversation.
In this respect, after the domesticatin of fire, hunter and gatherers have it good.
Figure 34
0078 But, what about our current Lebenswelt? What about the 21st century?
0079 Our current Lebenswelt is one of specialization. After the mechanical revolution starting in the early 1800s, specialization increases beyond imagination. All sorts of new species of “food for humans” arise in the 21st century. And, one popular item is called, “fast food”.
On the horizontal axis, the normal context of product selection3H brings the actuality of processed food2H into relation with the potential of industrial food processing1H.
On the vertical axis, the normal context of business development3V brings the actuality of restaurants2V in line with commercialization1V. Commercialization1V appears to be like the genome1V. Think of brand recognition. Each brand has a slogan. Slogans are the DNA of advertising.
0080 Here is the resulting interscope.
Figure 35
0081 Well, that is my guess as to how the author’s discussion plays out.
Every inquirer will come up with a different scenario.
That is one beauty of this type of exercise.
0082 Once can replace restaurants with diet regimes. Once can replace processed food with vitamin supplements.
On top of that, different topics are available. Fire is just one. Fire is domesticated in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
What about other domestications?
Animal and plant domestication occurs much more recently. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether animal and plant domestication begins in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in as opposed to our current Lebenswelt. Dogs are domesticated in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. What about pigeons?
0083 The topic of food shows me that there is a big difference between cooking2H and eating2V in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in and processed foods2H and restaurants2V in our current Lebenswelt. Guidance is required. Guidance2 is the single actuality that combines the professor2H and the podcaster2V.
0084 The same exercise of playing with intersections can be performed for the family, covering chapters seven (Sex and Gender), eight (Parenthood) and nine (Childhood).
Oh yeah, guidance is needed here. The authors provide valuable insights.
0085 As a complement to the authors’ guidance and insights on these topics, consider A Second Primer on the Organization Tier and A Primer on the Family, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-work venues.
0086 In chapters ten (School) and eleven (Becoming Adults), the authors wrestle with 21st century social constructions that do not adequately conform with human adaptations that belong to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
On top of that, contemporary grammar schools, high schools and colleges in the modern West are… um… not what they were before 2017.
That ship has sailed.
On all levels, your instructors1H are now assigned2H to inform you, the student, of an actuality2a(1V) that guides the internal dynamics of the postmodern educational system2V: political advocacy.
More on that later.
0087 Former hunters and gatherers face questions, such as, “What are schools supposed to do? Why are the rituals of becoming an adult tied to modern schools?”
Yes, children are raised by parents. But, are schools more than an extension of parental authority? Yes, they are.
In terms of our evolutionary history, childhood and adolescence prepare the individual for a certain degree of specialization, characteristic of team activity.
0088 This allows me to propose, for the authors, an approach to include in their next book. After all, if anything, this examination shows that their guidance is the first step towards an entirely novel curriculum outside the bounds of higher education2.
0089 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, children and adolescents are “schooled” in the ways of team activities. Plus, each individual is given opportunities to compete to join a cooperative team. Each individual is expected to exercise his or her talents.
If there is guidance by adults who are not the parents of a child or an adolescent, then that guidance opens a door to joining a team activity. Teacher and student share risks within the team. Every success benefits the team, directly, and all social circles, indirectly. These risks and benefits accrue as the team encounters the world out there (the ecology and environment).
0090 Here is a picture.
Figure 36
0091 At this point, I can see that Heying and Weinstein’s book recapitulates an ancient paradigm, within the hypernovel world of the 21st century.
The student says, “Guide me.” The teacher says, “Join my team.”
Patronize the darkhorse podcast and join the team.
0091 What is team activity2?
Team activity2 is a genus-specific trait2 that regularly entails guidance by non-parental members of a band. Team-activities2 is a single actuality2 that contains adaptations2H and phenotypic traits2V. So, I can place the term, “team activities”, into the slot for “species” in the intersection for biological evolution.
Figure 37
0092 Now, I can make alterations to this intersection, based on literal and metaphorical interpretations of the elements.
0093 First, I alter the potentials, then the other elements of each intersecting nested form, as follows.
The genome1b((1V) decodes DNA2a. Similarly, one’s motivations1b decode one’s talents2a. Talent2a supports an internal motivation to join a particular team1V. The phenotypic expression2V is a desire to participate2V. To participate2V is to belong2 in the normal context of both individual and team development3V.
The niche1b(1H) is the potential of an actuality2a that is independent of the adapting species2a(2H).
What is the actuality that is independent of all team activities?
It is the world out there!
Adaptation2H occurs in the normal context of natural (the individual must perform the appropriate tasks) and cultural (the individual must work for the team and with other team members) selection3H. I call the adaptation competing to cooperate2H. I shorten the slogan to comp-to-coop2H. Comp-to-coop2H coheres to the definitions of direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity and altruism. Compete-to-cooperate2H explains their evolution. Comp-to-coop2H emerges from (and situates) diverse potentials of the proximate niche1H.
0094 Here is a picture of the adjusted intersection.
Figure 38
0095 Well, this does not look modern at all.
Where are the desks lined up in rows, facing the instructor? Where are the threats by administrators2H for instructors1H to tow the line of the latest trend in advocacy2a(1H)?
Take a look at the corrective sayings that Heying and Weinstein offers as guidance. Do not fear. Respect others. Follow fair rules. Protest unfair rules. Do not get comfortable. Do not get complacent. Take risks.
All these suggestions describe the intersection of team activities2, in the normal context of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in3, arising from the potential of our talents and the world out there1.
0096 How does the current state-supported education system twist our natural being into something that can be controlled in a top-down political regime?
It channels the competition to cooperate2H into state-defined (and regulated) specializations2H. In order to gain entrance into a specialization2H, one must attend school and become certified.
It channels the desire to participate2V into state-defined (and regulated) bodies of knowledge2V. One must go to school in order to achieve certification in regards to that body of knowledge2V. Mastery of the real separates professors2H (pre-2017) from instructors1H (post-2017). State-regulated bodies of knowledge may be real. Or, they may be fictions that high-level administrators want to be advocated. Who knows the difference?
0097 In the 21st century, expertise2 is the single actuality2 that encompasses specializations2H and certification2V.
Here is a picture.
Figure 39
0098 With this diagram in mind, take another look at what Heying and Weinstein have to say.
Plus, consider the trauma that they endured.
Higher education (post-2017) has become a gamed and rigged system.
0099 Surely, there is more to Heying and Weinstein’s guidance than meets the eye.
Higher education (post-2017) resolves the intersection, by removing all the mystery.
Perhaps, the mystery dissolves into ways that administrators and their political allies rig and game the system.
When an intersection breaks down (that is, when it loses its mystery), it resolves into a two-level interscope.
0100 The following two-level interscope resolves the contradictions of expertise2.
Figure 41
0101 The actuality of postmodern (and modern) specialization2b virtually emerges from and situates school certification2aas the gateway to participation in a state-regulated system. State-management1a channels personal motivations1a. So, jobs1b are never satisfying, because they satisfy regulatory requirements1a and simply assume that personal motivations1aapply.
0102 At this point, I look backwards to chapter three (Ancient Bodies, Modern World) and forwards into chapter twelve (Culture and Consciousness).
Consider the following figure.
Figure 42
Can I say that culture goes with adaptation2H and consciousness goes with phenotype2V?
Figure 43
If so, then the above figure re-articulates the mystery within chapter twelve. Chapter twelve juxtaposes culture2H and consciousness2V and plays the one off the other. But, in reality, these two actualities pertain to a single actuality2, the Homo genus.
0103 “Homo” is Latin for “man”. “Genus” is Latin for “general kind”.
Consider how modern wordplay has twisted the meaning, presence and message of these terms.
Then consider the value of this book, as well as Weinstein’s darkhorse podcast.
0104 Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein are professors, once adapted to the niche of higher education (pre-2017) and now adapting to the niche of podcasting (post-2017).
Currently, higher education eliminates the distinction between disciplinary mastery and educational mission. Higher education (post-2017) resolves the mystery of team activities into a rigged system of regulated specializations situating school systems that game certifications.
The niche of podcasting keys into the evolution of team activities. In order to join the team, one patronizes the podcast. The next step, a crucial endeavor, concerns certification. How does one certify what another person has mastered while listening to and supporting podcasts?
This is the question that I pose at the end of this examination of Heying and Weinstein’s book.
Surely, we need guidance in answering the challenge.
0001 Professor Gad Saad is an expert in applying evolutionary psychology to contemporary consumer behavior. He publishes a book, titled, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. The cover of the book is adorned with a graphic. A hand holds one end of a thread that goes on to become a line drawing of the human neocortex. Is the thread going into the head? Or, is the thread (of common sense) coming out of the head?
I suppose I have to read the book to find out.
0002 Saad gets into the push-pull operation in chapter four, titled, “Anti-Science, Anti-Reason and Illiberal Movements”. He lists four contemporary academic beings… er… parasites: postmodernism, social constructivism, radical feminism and transgender activism. Each movement… er… parasite is founded on a demonstrable falsehood. Each desires to be free from reality.
For these comments, I use gender as an example.
0003 In order to diagram these statements, I consult A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction. These primers, by Razie Mah, are available at smashwords and other e-book venues. They are not long. They are very informative.
0004 A parasite feeds off a host.
The host goes with the content-level. The parasite places content in an alternate situation.
0005 I begin with the host. The host takes the actuality of men and women2a, which emerges from a biological distinction (which, in turn is an actuality in another nested form)1a in the normal context of an orthodox view3a. The term, biological distinction1a, is short for the potential of sexual dimorphism, as expressed in humans1a. Roughly, “ortho” means “right” and “dox” means “doctrine”.
Figure 01
0006 Obviously, this content-level is scientifically, reasonably and liberally situated by cognitive psychology and its companion discipline, evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists explain the findings of cognitive psychologists in terms of natural selection and genetics: adaptations and phenotypes.
0007 The social constuctivist approach runs opposition to cognitive (and evolutionary) psychology. The social constructivist claims to situate the orthodox view, with the possibility that biological distinctions are irrelevant. Instead, only the human will is relevant. Gender is a personal choice. Gender is an act of the will.
The resulting situation-level nested form looks like this.
0008 Now, people talk about men and women all the time. They act within a traditional framework3a where ideas about men and women2a emerge from (and situate) the potential of sexual dimorphism, as expressed in humans1a. Explicit ideas2a can be articulated in speech-alone talk. Conversations may be recorded for scientific inquiry. Implicit ideas2aproduce expressive phenomena, such as blushing or averting one’s gaze, that can be observed and measured using instrumentation (surveillance cameras).
Consequently, cognitive psychology3b virtually situates the same content-level nested form as social construction3b.
Figure 03
0009 The difference is obvious. Social constructionism does not observe and measure1b attitudes and behaviors associated with the orthodox view3a. Rather, social construction3b virtually situates othodox views3a with a situation-level potential1b, the human will1b, which is an explicit abstraction concerning human nature.
Saad calls the forced choice between the scientific potential of observations and measurements1b and the constructionist potential of the human will1b, “intellectual terrorism”.
Well, terrorists hold people and things hostage. What do social constructionists hold hostage?
Ah, it must be observations and measurements1b.
Is that what makes these postmodern movements anti-science?
0010 But, there is more.
The content-level is also virtually situated by traditional formulations about the nature of the content-level. In the West, these forms come from churches, for the most part. They are very old, but still remain within our current Lebenswelt.
Figure 04
0011 The normal context of traditional doctrines3b brings the actuality of marriage and the family2b into relation with the potential of male-female pair bonding1b.
Isn’t that reasonable?
The relational logic of marriage is portrayed in A Primer on the Family, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
Nature appears to express its own will. There is a natural intention1b (male-female pair bonding) that virtually situates a biological distinction1a. Plus, that natural intention1b appears at the very start of the foundational text for Christian civilization. Remember Adam and Eve?
0012 What is another thing that social constructionists hold hostage?
Ah, it must be male-female pair bonding.
0013 The possibility of male-female pair bonding1b underlies marriage and family2b in the normal context of tradition3b. Plus, male-female pair bonding1b emerges from (and situates) the entire contenta level. Male-female pair bonding1baccounts for the entire contenta level. It is perfectly reasonable that human bodies are adaptations into the niche of male-female pair bonding.
This is what makes postmodern movements anti-reason.
0014 So far, in looking at chapter four of Saad’s book and using gender as the example, I re-articulate some of the author’s claims using the category-based nested form.
Postmodern illiberal movements situate orthodox views about men and women2a with the concept that gender is a personal choice2b.
Figure 05
0015 Plus, postmodern illiberal movements3b exclude both traditional formulations3b and the disciplinary language of cognitive psychology3b.
On what theoretical grounds do they exclude?
0016 Well, if they have no theoretical grounds, then they would be intellectual terrorists.
But, if they do, then what would put the normal context of social construction3b into perspective3c?
Well, the perspective must be a postmodern illumination3c, because the situation-level normal context3b displaces both science and reason. The situation tells me that gender is a personal choice2b. An third-level actuality2c must put that personal choice2b into perspective. If the world2c is “naively innocent”, then that perspective empowers the situation-level actuality2b. If the world2c is “treacherously corrupt”, then that perspective explains why the situation-level actuality2b may never be realized (without the assistance of a benevolent being with sovereign power).
0017 Here is a picture of the dark side of the postmodern illumination3c.
Figure 06
0018 The slogan of “toxic masculinity”2c enters the picture as emerging from (and situating) the potential that contextualizes the situation level1c. Men are oppressors. Women are oppessed. And, that is all there is to it. The actuality2c emanating from the potential of ‘the patriarchy’1c is an illumination of darkness3c, in the Manichaean sense of the term, “darkness”.
Of course, this perspective is counter-intutitive in the sensethat is incomplete. The problem? The other half of the illumination goes unspoken. An illumination3cof light, as opposed to darkness, remains unspoken.
0019 Here is a picture of the naively innocentside of the postmodern illumination3c.
Figure 07
0020 Naive and innocent sovereign acts and decrees have the potential1c of mitigating the dominating and inflexible patriarchy1c. Of course, this requires sovereign power1c.
0021 What happens when ‘sovereign acts and decrees’1c counters ‘the patriarchy’1c?
Men are humbled2c and women are liberated2c in the normal context of the light-filled normal context of postmodern illumination3c.
0022 In order to appreciate the three-level interscope derived in the last blog, I consider the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility. This turns the column in firstness, consisting of elements 1a, 1b and 1c into a category-based nested form.
0023 Here is a picture.
Figure 08
0024 Postmodern gender studies only proclaims the dark illumination3c. The light illuminations3c, where liberation2coccurs, cannot be articulated, because humiliation2c and liberation2c emerge from (and situate) sovereign acts and decrees1c. What does the postmodern (il)liberal gain from bringing politics and policies into the picture?
So, the proclamation of the dark illumination3c fills the airwaves.
0023 In the normal context of the patriarchy1c, the relevance of the humans will1b virtually emerges from (and situates) the irrelevance of biological distinctions1a, including the potential of sexual dimorphism in humans1a.
Consequently, men choose to gender themselves as males based on human will1b, rather than the potentials of scientific observations and measurements1b and the reasonable (natural law) conclusion that men and women are adapted to pair-bonding1b. The human will1b does not virtually emerge from a biological distinction1a. Rather, the human will1b decides how to situate biological distinctions1a, where biological distinctions1a correspond to the potential inherent in male and female phenotypes1a.
0024 In short, the situation-level potential of the relevance of the human will1b veils the relevance of observations and measurements1b (in cognitive science3b) and the relevance of pair-bonding1b (from traditional moral and religious fomulations3b).
What happens next?
According to the normal context of social construction3b, if neither science3b nor religion3b are relevant, then content-level of orthodox views3a should no longer serve as subject matter. The content-level is eclipsed.
0025 Here is a picture.
Figure 09
0026 What does this imply?
Discussions about men and women2a, one of the favorite topics in bars and coffeeshops near college campuses, are no longer pertinent.
