It's Time: Unifying Social Science and What It Means to be Human

It’s Time: UnifyingSocial Science andwhat it means to beHuman (a summary

paper)

‘Man, in fact, has embarked on a wholly new phase of evolution, the psycho-social phase, in which he has the responsibility for his own future evolution, and indeed for that of the whole planet. For this task, he must learn the rules of this new kind of evolutionand study the mechanisms by which it operates.’1 – Huxley and Kettlewell, Charles Darwin and his World

This new kind of evolution is cultural expression.

1

Index

Preface

Introduction Understanding Hypercomplexity

Section 1

Relative Concert (The World of Meaning)

Chapter 1 Second(s) Nature

Chapter 2 Making Sense of Mind 

Section 2

Hard Neighbours (The Natural and Physical Worlds)

Chapter 3 Beyond Darwin(ism)

Chapter 4 The Williams Ether

Section 3

Personas Culturis (The Human Effect)

Chapter 5 Wha’s Like Us

Chapter 6 Easter Planet

Conclusion – It’s Our Time

2

Preface

In the UK, on television channel BBC2 a five part documentary series called 'Human Universe' finished at the end of 2014. Onthe programme title alone it is difficult to see what could/would come next. In 2014 it's encouraging to see this kind of interest in our species from the hard sciences but tinged with a little dismay that it's not a social scientist making and driving the programme. That being said, some of thestatements made about humankind are truly mind blowing. As presenter Brian Cox says, “After almost fourteen billion yearsof cosmic evolution, and some four billion years of life on earth, the universe became conscious.”2

 As interesting as this programme is there is a deep and lasting difference between narrative, and metanarrative. To date there has been no accepted theory of culture, a metanarrative that connects and unifies the social sciences, arts and humanities. The social epistemological spectrum has yet to be 'Newtonised'. This thesis changes that. It changes the direction on what, to this point, was thought possible notjust from science and social science but wider human knowledge.

 It's time to realise how meaning and time are interwoven. It's time for the social sciences at the level of general theory to come of age. It's time for humankind to realise thatthe process driving thought and action is tellingly expression, not evolution. It's time to understand the processof cultural expression in detail (theory, mechanism and even equation), and difference to evolution.

 It's time to fully realise the direction our species is on, and the forces that drive that creative and destructive process, individually and collectively.

 It's Time.

3

Introduction Understanding Hypercomplexity

 “Everyone knows that the social sciences are hypercomplex.They are inherently far more difficult than physics and chemistry, and as a result they, not physics and chemistry, should be called the hard sciences.”3 – Edward O. Wilson

This introductory chapter looks at the attempts to unify, Newontise and/or Darwinise the social sciences through a general theory of culture. While there are historical examplesof this across the social sciences the last century and a halfhas seen a gradual withdrawal from this quest(ion) from the social sciences while 10+ schools of thought from the evolutionary perspective have failed to generate an accepted theory of culture. There has been a lasting belief that an accepted theory of culture can be arrived at from the evolutionary perspective. Indeed, for some a failure to achieve this could affect the standing of evolutionary theory itself. As Richerson and Boyd write:

“As long as humans stand outside the Darwinian synthesis, as long as human culture is said to be superorganic, the whole Darwinian project has a potentially fatal gap.”4

The sustained effort over the last 150 years from evolutionarytheory stands in sharp contrast from the lack of unifying activity across the social sciences. Few theorists have captured this lack of activity and ambition more than CliffordGeertz:

“Though those with what they take to be one big idea are still among us, calls for “a general theory” of anything social sound increasingly hollow, and claims to have one megalomaniac. Whether this is because it istoo soon to hope for unified science or too late to believe in it is, I suppose, debatable.”5

The road towards such a theory Geertz called ‘terrifying complexity.’6 I’ve already highlighted Edward O. Wilson, author of Sociobiology7 and gene-culture co-evolutionary theory8

4

who worked on this task over decades calling the social sciences hypercomplex. This opening section outlines the history to this point but also what is required in creating such a theory.

The social sciences, arts and humanities would have to be connected and unified along a social epistemological spectrum. This emerging theory of culture would also be a theory of knowledge. Through Sociological Psychology9 such a theory couldbridge into the natural sciences and prompt a Postmodern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory with a template for a general theory of nature. Theoretical Sociophysics10 would enable this theory to bridge into the physical sciences and sophisticate our understanding of time, information and the forces that enable and hold the social world of humankind together. Moreover, we can gain fresh insight into the workings of the physical world with this rich understanding of the often virtual social world. One example of this would be the realisation of meantime and placetime of culture and how that interacts with the spacetime of the physical realm. This body of work is only possible from an approach and critical thinkingrooted in the social sciences. We are the custodians of social world phenomena, but the work into the neighbouring domains of knowledge has to meet the levels of rigour we associate with the natural and physical epistemological spectrums.

The range of subject matters that have to be covered push the investigator of this, and to a degree have to challenge the reader, but at all times the motivation has to be locating the mechanism that underpins culture(s) over time and place and making that understanding accessible to all. This in turn drives the enquiry towards something approaching truth, towardsthe fundamental levels of explanation across the social, natural and physical sciences and then work begins on the new challenge, that of presentation.

The reason why I know that is the course is because over the last 18 years that is what I have been working on. If Thomas Kuhn is to be believed and paradigm shifts do not come from ‘normal science’11 then I am a good example of someone doing

5

not normal science, but my results, like all human expressions(conversational mediums) speak for themselves. I went to university and was inspired to work on a question that the social sciences mistakenly thought was too complex, and the evolutionary sciences mistakenly thought was too achievable.

This is an overview of my work.

Lecture Series: Each chapter, including this Introduction is the basis for a 10 week lecture series. This series would lookat ‘The Culture of Culture’ and how various areas of knowledgehave tried to understand culture, from indigenous and aboriginal times through to the scientific age, to present day. Also, how what we mean by ‘culture’ has changed in that time. It is important to be clear what we mean by culture before we head into the main chapters, and for social science students to have a fuller understanding of what culture is, and how it relates to society. This is a question I asked

6

myself constantly throughout my undergraduate years to the present.

7

Section 1

Relative Concert (The World of Meaning)

“If I were to give a prize for the single best idea anybody ever had I’d give it to Darwin for the idea of natural selection. Ahead of Newton, ahead of Einstein because his idea unites the most disparate features of our universe. The world of purposeless, meaningless, matter in motion on the one side, and the world of meaning and purpose, design on the other.”12 - Daniel Dennett

There are three worlds that are mentioned here and they will be referred to throughout the thesis as the physical, natural and social worlds. While Darwin’s work in large part connects the world of matter in motion and the world of meaning, to this day no evolutionary based approach has generated an accepted theory of culture which would make sense of the worldof meaning. From the relative concert (which can also be a tension) of culture and mind emerged meaning, and time, and these two chapters on culture and mind are essential in realising that the dimension here is not cultural evolution but one of cultural expression. The world of meaning is “a type of causality that is essentially absent in other animals”13 writes Roy Baumeister in The Cultural Animal and Section1 is devoted to explaining this world/dimension in unparalleled terms.

In Chapter 1 we look at Second(s) Nature and show that the processof change in the social world of humankind is not evolution, which is a specific kind of change in the organic setting, but‘the world of meaning and purpose, design’ and that is cultural expression for five key reasons. Cultural Expression has a law, and a very specific mechanism which unlocks a new, sophisticated way of understanding memory in causal processes,as well as understanding time (meantime and placetime), knowledge, information and culture’s ubiquity. Culture has laws of motion and notion and just like a conversation has an ebb and flow, so too does culture. Indeed, all artefacts, all hundreds of billions of artefacts, the world over, including language and ideas are ‘conversational mediums’ and that would

8

include this summary paper. Understanding culture as the inherent character of the human social world just like nature is the inherent character of the organic world is important tograsp culture’s pervasiveness, complexity and can account somewhat for the time it has taken to generate such a theory.

In Making Sense of Mind in Chapter 2 I show that without minds there is no culture. A proto mind may well operate within/through a proto culture but to reach the propulsion andrevolution upon revolution of culture (proper) you need a mind(proper) and this chapter deals with the human mind, and the idea of conferring sensehood to mind. If this paper makes sense, then it makes mind. If we use Richard Dawkins metaphor for the brain as an engine then the mind is the emergent performance that comes from this engine, a performance that isuniquely aware of itself, or rather the awareness between our feel’d of experience, conscious mind and unconscious mind. Thetrilectic mechanism from the previous chapter provides a template for understanding the dynamism of the mind and how it connectswith culture from which meaning and time emerge, ebb and flow.Time is the sum total of human expression, and meaning the sumtotal of human impression and meaning occurs in/through the mind. Understanding how the human mind works in connection, increativity and in control (we are the only species held accountable for our actions) is illuminated in this chapter.

9

Chapter 1 Second(s) Nature

“The second hereditary system, the cultural one in which we teach people ideas and so on, is as important, or moreimportant in determining how people behave than just their genetics.”14 - John Maynard Smith

Before we think about culture, we first have to think about nature. While the natural world is made of trees, mountains, animals, plants, weather, etc, nature itself is non-corporeal.That is to say ‘nature’ is the inherent character of the natural world. So while trees, mountains, animals, plants and weather are part of the structure of the natural world, nature is the system of motion that we can see operating through the naturalworld’s physicality. The natural world is the body, nature is ‘the dance’ acting through this body. If we watch a couple dancing, with enough knowledge we can identify the dance they are doing because of the identifiable system of motion each dance has, its inherent character of motion.

Culture is a different system to nature. It is a system that acts through the physicality (and virtuality, see: Chapter Four) of the social world of humankind. There are trillions ofartefacts all around us, from the screen you are watching, thedesk it is sitting on, the screws in the desk, the clothes youare wearing, even the words you are reading, are all part of avast dimension of artificiality, human made and non-natural. The system of motion, “the dance” is culture. Wherever there are collectives of people, there are cultures, because cultureis their system of motion, and meaning. This ‘works’ too for all identifiable collectives of Sociological peoples, be it different Sociology departments across all universities, different fields of research across Sociology, even different areas of research, and collective job roles within the same department, each collective has its own way of doing things, its own culture. While this “way” of doing things is common, and seems natural, it is ‘second nature’ in that it is learned, but does seem natural. It is the normal, accepted wayof doing things, and also seeing how things are done. People travel around the world to visit other places to see how otherpeople behave and express themselves, they want to “soak up” their culture, much like we would “soak up” a performance, be it a dance show, music festival, etc. The goal for social

10

science at this level is to generate the accepted theory of culture that illuminates the underlying mechanism for all cultures. To date, social science has generally avoided this task, but that is not the case for the evolutionary and/or natural sciences when it comes to trying to ‘crack’ culture.

Think about Charles Darwin and the theory of Evolution. Think about how famous and powerful a theory it has been over the last 150+ years in explaining life on earth. And yet it has, to date, been unable to provide an accepted theory of culture.The reason for that is simple and lasting. It is not possible.The historical process of constancy and change through the social world of humankind, is not a process of Cultural Evolution as many have often thought, but the process of Cultural Expression. There is a historical pattern here. Before ‘evolution’ was the settled and accepted understanding of the historical process of constancy and change in the stateof nature, it was regarded as a process of “transmutation”, which was the term used by al/chemists working on change at the elemental and chemical levels. However, once the theory was discovered “transmutation” gave way to “evolution”. The same is the case here, except evolution is giving way to “expression”. Newton and Einstein were physical scientists whodiscovered physical mechanism and law(s). Darwin and Wallace were naturalists who discovered the mechanisms for biological and botanical change in nature 172 years after Newton’s Principia. There is something historically and scientifically valid for a social scientist to discover and present (in 2016)the laws of cultural expression 157 years after Darwin’s Origin of Species.

It is Cultural Expression for five main reasons, which we can view through the acronym EAMES15, Expression – Adoption – Meaning – Emergence – Speed

Expressive processThe social world of humankind is not created by natural selection, it is an expression of the human mind, and its creativity and foresight. Art, articulation, article and artefacts are all human expressions. It is one level of awareness to realise that humans can express themselves into artefacts that then make up their primary source of

11

experience, and yet another level of awareness in realising that humans can’t stop expressing themselves into this artificialworld all around them/us. This process of construction is alsoone of reconstruction, where genre and generational change arefundamental characteristics of culture. Cultural Expression represents the passing of a causal rubicon from the “illusion of design” process of Evolution, into Expression, the realm ofdesign. Learning and the ‘sights’ of mind (foresight, insight,hindsight and oversight) are very different from evolution’s first order causation of random variations.

AdoptionAdoption is the second order causation of Cultural Expression,just like natural selection is the second order causation of the evolutionary process. Darwin was aware of a difference here, writing that “nature for the good of the organism, culture for man’s pleasure”, he also wrote in Origin of ‘man’s fancy’. This feature of adoption (not adaptation) Darwin referred to as ‘remarkable’16. Real awareness lies in understanding that human expressed interest maintains the made world of culture. This can also be through ‘express’ permission. Creative expression generates the world of artefacts, the dynamic museum of humankind which requires expressed interest to be maintained. What attracts our attention differs over time and place, but the same processes of expression and adoption persist with a definite mechanism underpinning all cultures. Cultural adoption, and human conscious adjustment are causally different from the evolutionary processes of assimilation, accommodation and adaptation.

Meaning, meantime (and placetime)“Meaning changes the nature of behaviour”17 wrote Roy Baumeister in The Cultural Animal. Dennett calls this causal realm "the world of meaning" and we have a process with mechanism, law(s) and measurability. The Law of Expression is:

A cultural expression is equal to the sum total of all unfolding impressions.

Through this chapter the reader will see that the sum total ofall human expressions are ‘time’ and the impressions are

12

‘meaning’, without exception. These words that I type right now record my thoughts, and it is no coincidence that around the world newspapers are called ‘Times’. The invisible communicated impressions that nudge us around our lives are meaning(s). Meaning truly is in the mind’s eye of the beholder. This current of time and meaning, in the now, we call meantime. Meaning and time are interwoven. In this chapter you’ll see how that interacts with placetime, the human recorded dimension. Meaning turns temporal sequence intosomething quite different, with new fabrics of time, meantime and placetime. For several reasons the PhD is called ‘It’s Time’, and it is not possible to understand culture to the required standard without a rich awareness of its connection with time(s). The trilectic illustrations are invaluable in displaying how meantime, placetime and spacetime interact, andhow information ‘works’ in between. This level of awareness isbeyond any and all evolutionary approaches to understanding culture.

EmergenceExpression is a process of emergence, not evolution. Expression historically emerged from the evolutionary process,and as an ongoing current of human activity. To say it is an emergent property is good but to realise it is an emergent capacity and emergent process is better. This emergence is a constantly refreshing one. It refreshes as repetition, reforming, radical and even emergency such is the revolutionary character of culture. This is a key point here. We are trying to understand the constancy and change of the culture system, and historical references to cultural evolution are based on a different system of change, that can only metaphorise rather than generate the metanarrative that ageneral theory of culture demands. Culture’s history is an emergent one from evolution, and in current action it is an emergent capacity, which is refreshing in meantime and to a lesser degree in/through placetime. This is important when we begin to look at how quickly culture changes, and can be changed. There is an additional gear to culture that we can add to repetition, reforming, radical and revolution and that is retro, which is an important detail. Evolution doesn’t havea retro gear, this is another important difference.

13

SpeedCultural Expression is a historical process, one of revolutionupon revolution. It is an express, ever-quickening process. Evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould called culture “the Lamarckian Juggernaut”18 which is in stark contrast to the slow, gradual degrees over geological time we associate with evolution. Boyd and Richerson have written that culture was “built for speed”19, and it’s important to note that culture isnot just a system of motion, but it has an ever-quickening pace. Culture (proper) is different from primordial and proto culture. Once culture (proper) starts, its express quality is more evident generation on generation. We only need to reflecton how quickly computers and the internet have transformed (not just changed) the world we live in over the last three decades. The computer age is also referred to as The Digital Age or The Information Age and none of these changes correspond with any biological or genetic causal change. E.O.Wilson wrote that “genes hold culture on a leash20”, but wecan know all there is about biology and genes and they will never tell us about the ebb and flow of the social world of humankind and the five gears of culture: retro, repetition, reform, radical and revolution.

Part One will look at the artificial, and there is a symmetry with Charles Darwin here in that his first chapter of Origin of the Species covered ‘artificial selection’21 from which he metaphorised natural selection. It is a lasting truth that artificial is not just human-made, but not natural at the same time. This section will also look at art, and the expressive process that creates our ‘second nature’ lives through near constant feedback/feedforward between minds and culture through the conversational mediums (artefacts) all around us.

Part Two will begin to look at the key relationships we need to understand. This includes expression and impression and theemergence of the trilectic as a series of diagrams, if not topology which synthesises and sophisticates the process of explanation and presentation. This is a theory of humankind and in driving for modes of explanation for all humankind the trilectic was realised as the underlying mechanism for not just culture, but mind, nature, cosmos and time. Reading that back, for the first time reader that can sound (words are

14

visual noise) quite fantastical, but I discovered the trilectic in 2007 and I’ve been more comfortable with it ever since.

Part Three will reveal the Law of Expression and the depth of culture and its relationship with meaning and time, and how this has been so difficult to realise, and particularly from the perspective of evolutionary theory. It is not just a theory of the inherent character of the social world of humankind, it is also a theory of human knowledge, across the domains of social, natural and physical science. A theory of culture (ToC), is a social science based cosmology: desarrollo. (Spanish for development, and/or unrolling, unravelling).

Culture is all around us and yet the mechanisms that drive culture are, until now, unknown. Almost all people who own a watch or a clock have an understanding of it at ‘face value’ but have little or no idea how the mechanisms work. The same can be said for culture. The social theorist at this level of enquiry has to turn culture around and work through the layersof action, interaction and complexity, or hypercomplexity as Edward O.Wilson has written. Maynard Smith’s words (this chapter’s initial quote) are crucial to this whole argument, because without a general and accepted theory of culture, we can’t fully know mind, the social epistemological range, and how this bridges into the natural and physical sciences. Unlocking culture, unlocks in large part what it is to be human, as we deepen our understanding of how ‘second nature’ works. Becoming aware of how culture (and culture’s relativity) and time are deeply connected, even interwoven, means ‘second nature’ is really our second(s) nature. This rich depth of ‘self-causality’ through the power of human experience and second(s) nature is tellingly one of biography interacting over/through biology.

To recap, culture is the inherent character of the social world of humankind, as nature is the inherent character of thenatural world, and cosmos/cosmic is the inherent character of the universe. Culture has been called ‘a way of life’ but in many ways that just redefines the question. This body of work explains culture not just as a way of life, but as a weigh

15

(virtual gravitation of meaning) of life, weave (meantime and placetime) of life, and as a wave (of visual noise and sound) of life. The causality of culturally relative knowledge that drives human minds and culture through experience and biography we call belief. Beliefs are not held in genes, they are held in/through minds and culture. Cultures are belief systems.

Culture is ureCult22.

Second Hereditary System – Culture as Inherent Character –Evolution as new Transmutation – Expression – Adoption –Meaning and meantime – New Kind of Causation – Emergence –Speed – Five gears of culture – Desarrollo – Face value -Way, weigh, weave, wave of life – Belief systems –ureCult.

Lecture Series: While the lecture series from the introductorychapter is more an elective one, ‘The Life of Meaning: understanding Cultural Expression’ would be closer to a mandatory lecture series. It would inform all students across the social sciences, arts and humanities what culture is, and to levels of explanation previously not thought possible. These levels of explanation are accessible to all disciplines along the social epistemological spectrum.

16

Making Sense of the Mind

“The human brain provides possibly the only departure, the only possible engine of departure from Darwinian principles.”23 – Richard Dawkins

The human mind is the system to the human brain's structure. It is the inherent, emergent character of the human brain witha cognitive and emotional complexity passing a causal threshold so great, it results in creativity and control not seen anywhere else in the living world. Darwin famously wrote that the difference between the minds of animals and humans “was one of degree, not of kind”. It is the contention of thisthesis that the difference is one of dimension, in that human minds (proper) are beyond the measure of all that has gone before. This is part of the expressive process emerging from the evolutionary one. The principles of this chapter embody the approach of Sociological Psychology. Unlike Evolutionary Psychology’s initial text The Adapted Mind24 this chapter would beSociological Psychology’s The Attracted Mind in contrast. While Evolutionary Psychology stresses a harmony between culture andmind with evolutionary theory, sociological psychology argues that there is a difference, and it is far greater than the oneDarwin wrote of.

There is certainly evidence from the works of evolutionary theorists themselves of disagreement with Darwin on this. One example, in Matt Ridley’s The Agile Gene on page16 he suggests that this difference in mind is a quantitative one rather thana qualitative one. Then, on page17 he writes “We are so much better at language than even the cleverest ape that it really could be called a difference of kind, not degree.”25 We need tounderstand the mind in detail, and in difference. On human difference Richard Dawkins wrote in A Devil’s Chaplain that humans have “the gift of foresight - something utterly foreign to theblundering short-term ways of natural selection - and the giftof internalizing the very cosmos.”26 It is the human mind levelthat allows us to internalise the very cosmos. This is a cosmos we are not adapted to, but one we are attracted to as we expand our knowledge range in many areas. In addition to foresight (imagination), the mind has insight (understanding),hindsight (reflection) and oversight (management). These are

17

features of the mind’s eye, and in terms of personal control and feeling, the mine’s “I”.

What is the mind? - The London Underground (LU) remains an effective metaphor for the human mind. It is underground, in that is concealed beneath. The phrase ‘train of thought’ nudges us a little closer, and the platform signs ‘Mind the Gap’ are a poignant reminder that how we extend across and through our neural gaps creates the very reality of our experience. The LU is not one train, it is a massive interconnected system of pathways and motioning journeys from which the network emerges. So when we talk about the LU, we are talking about all that simultaneous, parallel activity. The LU is a noun that is defined by being a verb. This is the same for human mind. Mind is always a noun, and a verb. For example, to ‘remind’ someone of something is an action, it’s adoing thing. So we’re trying to understand this doing thing ofhuman mind, what it is and how it is different from all that has went before. This section will look at developments in psychology and neuroscience that can tell us about mechanics of the mind but still fall short of explaining meaning. At alltimes for ToC, meaning is in the mind’s eye of the beholder. It is the seat of impression(s). In a very real sense (sense of mind) we are always ‘under the impression’ of what is goingon in our mind. We can even wear technology that can measure the ebb and flow of brain waves from which mental experience emerges. Mind is constantly reforming, so always dynamically ‘in formation’. The mind is the whirl of meaning.

Emotion and Creativity - For ToC emotion is expressive motion.That is to say humans possess a range of awareness and expressive capacity that is so rich, that we can see it on theinner and the outer. This range results in a deep seated relativity both mentally and culturally. On the inner, and this is illustrated by the trilectic of mind, humans are the only species we know that speak to themselves. With an emerging unconscious mind (memory), the mind (preserving action/force) emerges and preserves the activity from our field of experience (aggregate). To deny “talking to oneself” is to deny part of the very human mental action that we are trying to understand. In Michio Kaku’s The Future of Mind27 he writes that the idea of the mind/brain as like a computer is an increasingly outmoded notion, being replaced with the

18

mind/brain as a learning machine, even super learning machine.This comes from the 100 billion neurons of the human brain, which number are as many stars in the known Universe. With each neuron connected to 1,000 to 10,000 other neurons, that is between 100 trillion to 1,000 trillion neurons. Hypercomplexity indeed.

From each mind we have an individual “take” on the world around us. Minds read the world relatively, and rather than humans seeing the world it is more accurate to say that human minds seem the world. We have 7.25 billion humans in the worldand if they were all to read this PhD summary no one would getthe same reaction. Humans seem the world differently. Expressing seeming doesn’t just result in difference, it results in an endless process of creativity and reconstructionfrom generation to generation, and through generation. Generational effects and genre are not in our genes. Finally on this point, imagine the room around you as a blank paint bynumbers picture with numbers 1-12 reflecting cultural/collective values. The least attractive 1, ranging tothe most attractive 12. Now imagine the same picture inside your head but with your individual, mental values (also ‘neural artefacts') of 1-12. Both of these ‘pictures’ are connected in a relative concert and they’ll change over time at varying levels and speeds. Collective and individual interests, attitudes and tastes change over time, as time. This dynamic is a specific, rangey human one and depends on the construction and reconstruction of social life. Berger andLuckmann were short when they wrote The Social Construction of Reality. Reality is the dimension of human social construction. Realityis not everything, it is a rangey human something.

Cognition and Control - A theory of culture has to connect andunify the social sciences, humanities and arts. Part of the humanities is Law and in law courts around the world each and every day we hold human minds to a test. That is the test of responsibility. The ability to manage your response, to act in a way that your changing society deems lawful is something humanand has to be accounted for. We don’t hold this test of any particle, plant, animal, or even children and a range of otherpeople. This is a test of mind as the executive sense in humancognition. Talking to oneself is a feature of self-control and

19

being able to simulate scenarios can provide internal checks and balances. This is dimension level difference. Science seeks to know how the world works, and how it acts. We can saythat since the beginning of the universe there is a story of unfolding reaction. Human minds are the first active reaction able to control their actions and take responsibility for them. In the world we live in today minds are being ‘radicalised’ in that others (i.e. belief systems) are taking a controlling influence over some humans. Moreover, after military conflicts finish there is “a battle for hearts and minds” which is really a battle for minds, the cognitive and emotional features of. It’s important to remind that having a human mind (and mine) is not necessarily better. In terms of control and emotion there is a downside of personal, mental life that particles, plants and animals do not experience. In some countries mental ill health has reached industrial levels.

Recently, Scotland (where I am from) went to the polls to votefor/against Independence, and seemingly greater control over their affairs. This is a mind-level awareness, and one that sociological psychology is well placed to explain. To understand the human condition requires an awareness of the processes highlighted here and the social and cultural conditions, which do condition. The mind is the emergent senseof knowing the world. To make sense of something is reference to the sense of mind. Common ‘sense’ is common mindedness. Minds and culture connect through a relative concert. This connection is a tension (attention) through which meaning and time ebb and flow. A neural/mental circuit on the inner of mind, and a circuit on the outer of/as culture. Seeming is at the heart of this understanding. Individually, the way we neurally stitch (seam) experience doesn’t just shape our reality, but the speed of it as well. The phenomena of time flying, and dragging will be explained in this section and that is enriched by a fuller definition of what we mean by time(s) in the social world. The next section looks at how thesocial world of humankind connects with the natural and physical worlds.

Mind as system to brain’s structure – Difference of dimension– Foresight, insight, hindsight, oversight – What is the mind?

20

– The whirl of meaning – Emotion and creativity – Seeming –Cognition and control – Responsibility – Making sense – Mindas sense.

Lecture Series: In ‘Sociological Psychology: Making Sense of Mind’ the lecture series looks at philosophical, evolutionary and sociological attempts to understand the mind. With the theory of/from sociological psychology, the trilectic of seeming/seaming, we can illuminate how the human individual experience works far beyond the capacity of evolutionary psychology. There are a range of exciting research areas emerging from this approach.

Section 2

Hard Neighbours (The Natural and Physical Worlds)

“Although we have a very nice picture of how evolution occurred genetically, we still don’t, there’s not yet

21

been a Darwin for cultural evolution. We know a lot about it but we don’t really understand the mechanisms”28 – Paul Ehrlich

Paul Ehrlich’s quote comes from a speech he gave while out promoting his book The Dominant Animal. In the book he writes Darwin “Newtonized”biology29. He ‘showed that myriad seemingly disparate facts could be explained by a set of unifying rules of change.’ Not only is ToC the process of “Newtonising” and connecting the social sciences, arts and humanities through these unifying rules of change, it goes much deeper. There is not just connection between the physical and natural sciences,but between the social sciences as well, and this section highlights, showcases even, the explanatory power that comes from ToC (which in large part is a theory of knowledge) and how it can bridge into the natural and physical domains providing fresh insight into how the worlds around us work.

Sociological psychology is shown in Chapter 1 and 2 to succeedwhere a range of evolutionary approaches have failed to generate an accepted theory of culture (ToC). In Chapter 3 Beyond Darwin(ism) shows the explanatory power of ToC in sophisticating our understanding of the evolutionary process with a Postmodern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory, something that has been referred to elsewhere30, but delivered here. To be clear, evolution is the process of biological and botanicalchange in the nature setting but the knowledge story of that over the last century has been too gene-centred, reifying natural selection, an important action but not synonymous withevolution. This belief fostered a view that culture was amenable to an evolutionary and/or genetic explanation, which ToC exposes as a misguided notion. Epigenetic and Lamarckian developments, systems biology and genomics, coupled with ToC demand revision due to the critical reviewing feature of science, and not only does a Postmodern Synthesis come from this work but in tandem with Lewontin’s triple helix31, and Lovelock’s Gaia32 a general theory of nature.

Chapter 4 The Williams Ether looks at the structure and measurementof culture. Raymond Williams called culture ‘the structure of feeling’33 and this chapter is a journey through meaning as virtual gravitation, time (placetime, meantime and spacetime),

22

information, energy and matter(s) towards the equation that sits at the heart of human social interaction: Y≈mt²+c. Einstein discovered the relationship between energy and matterin the physical world, and this equation displays the relationship between human expressive energy and matter(s), which are sources of meaning. Measurement is the ultimate goalof dimension beyond explanation and that is a key part of thischapter. While the equation is a mathematical unit this was not realised through mathematics. This was a result of 1,000s of hours of critical thinking, theory building and working through how culture works. There exists an opportunity for theoretical physics to fully mathematize this body of work andopen up new approaches to understanding time with the ability to go further than a ToC and/or theoretical sociophysics basedapproach can. Furthermore, the insight theoretical sociophysics provides on the workings of the virtual world canprovide fruitful avenues for the physical sciences.

23

Chapter 3 Beyond Darwin(ism)

“…whatever variation is possible under culture is possible under nature;— not that the same form would everbe accumulated & arrived at by selection for man's pleasure, & by natural selection for the organism's owngood.”34 - Charles Darwin

Darwin knew enough about nature to realise that culture was something quite different, but he was wrong to state that whatever variation is possible under culture is possible undernature. Nature doesn’t do artificial, while culture is definedby artificial: the human made, artefact, art, articulation, article, artists and artisan. In the first chapter of Origin of Species Darwin dealt with human horticulture and animal breeding, and called this ‘artificial selection’ and/or ‘man’smethodical selection’. Not only is this a small part of what we can understand as culture Darwin wasn’t trying to solve thepuzzle of culture, but of design. The dominant narrative till this time was the Biblical narrative that stated God had designed species, but the science of geology discovered the world was much older than traditionally thought. There were a number of ‘transmutation’ theories around before Darwin released his theory of evolution explaining the process of biological and botanical change of life on earth. In a nutshell Darwin’s theory relies on random mutations at the molecular level which over time result in changes to existing species. A competitive “struggle for existence” unfolds and the versions of species most ‘fit’ to survive would pass on their offspring, and over vast expanses of geological time there would be a diversity of species which looks like they have been designed, but fundamentally natural selection:

1. is metaphorised from human, artificial selection (man’s methodical selection)

2. has no foresight3. is an intermittent tendency, in that if 2 variations go

on and survive, there is no ‘selection’, the outcome is the 2 versions of the species. They are both preserved.

Later Darwin would write that a more accurate term for his theory would be ‘natural preservation’35 and this is something

24

that is in tune with the trilectic, and will be used in The Postmodern Evolutionary Synthesis, which will be explained shortly. The mutations that occur have to be random in the Darwinian model, they have to be initially ‘detached’ from theenvironment. If the initial changes happened as a result of the environment (inheritance of acquired characteristics) then this would be Lamarckian inheritance, a theory of transmutation half a century before Darwin. Darwin’s theory isrooted on changes that are detached from the environment, and in Lamarck’s theory changes are learned from the environment. Darwin detached, Lamarck learning. That is an important difference to note.

Culture is largely a process of foresight with most of the designed things in the human world, the world of meaning requiring the kind of insight, foresight, hindsight and oversight that were discussed in the previous chapter. Darwin’s theory is one of ‘illusion of design’ (‘designoid’36 Richard Dawkins refers to,) and for Darwin natural selection was the main mechanism of several within the evolutionary process. Since Darwin’s time natural selection has been synonymised with evolution to the point where the other mechanisms have been relegated, muted and often ignored and this has led to a narrative that refers to natural selection with a uniform and high degree of designing efficiency that the facts do not support. Evolutionary theory has a relationship with temporality. The longer the stretch of geological time the weaker natural selection can be in explaining diversity because the process of “descent with modification” as Darwin referred can be so gradual. Human design occurs in a world of revolution upon revolution (“the Lamarckian Juggernaut” Gould wrote of culture) and that process of change is different in dimension to evolution, and this is why it has been called Cultural Expression, for reasons already covered, one of which is the speed, the ‘express’ feature of culture.

In the 1930s and 40s, after the Mendelian genetics revolution offered the molecular mechanism for Darwin’s detached initial changes, it was merged with evolutionary theory and this was called The Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory. In the 1950s the structure of DNA was discovered. In the 1960s

25

William Hamilton took this still further by postulating that social traits and instincts were Darwinian in nature and evolutionary theory could explain this as well. In the late 1960s into the 1970s we can see this cultural bandwagon give rise to more attempts to Darwinise culture with Cloak’s Cultural Ethology (1968), Wilson’s Sociobiology (1975), and Dawkins’ Memetics (1976). To date we’ve had 10+ schools of thought that have tried to Darwinise culture and they have allfailed to generate an accepted theory of culture. They are allmotivated to define culture not on the terms of culture as thephenomenon that requires to be understood, but to extend the evolutionary metaphor into the social world of humankind and try to explain as much as they can plausibly, creatively, and at times rather cavalier-like, as Darwinian. Sociologically, all “isms” come with the danger of dogma and neo-Darwinism in trying to explain culture at the level of mechanism, law and measurement is no different. Here we can contrast neo-Darwinism as a movement (we’re interested in laws of motion) with another movement that has set out to explain social science, and other branches of knowledge through “intelligent design” (ID). The divine narrative that Darwinism replaced hasresulted in other movements that seek to place some kind of divine action at the heart of the evolutionary process, even accepting of micro-evolution but rejecting macro-evolution. There is a branch of neo-Darwinism that not only wants to explain culture, but mind, indeed all phenomena through Universal Darwinism (UD) but this is a pseudo-scientific position. Rather briefly in this chapter the ID of intelligentdesign will be compared to the UD of “intelligent define” arguing that this dogmatic branch of neo-Darwinism is near theological Darwinism in advancing UD, while there is no settled and accepted theory of culture from the Darwinian and/or evolutionary perspective.

At this point it’s worth reflecting on why this is even important. Why do we do knowledge, and why is there a fight for the narrative in what drives humans? The Intelligent Design movement is motivated to promote the idea of an intelligence that drives humanity, and life in general and that intelligence is illusive and possibly divine. The Intelligent Define movement of Universal Darwinism, and neo-Darwinism to a lesser degree is motivated to promote the idea

26

that the evolutionary process, and therefore our genes and adaptive processes are what drive life species, including humans. Cultural Expression is not just an explanatory model which highlights mechanism, law and measurement of culture, a process with its own drives, it too comes with the danger of dogma and that’s why we have to stay clear as much as we can from ideas like ‘Cowanism’ for example and stick with Expression as the historical process of cultural change where present and future theorists and scientists can work on the theory, rather than work on keeping some dogma alive.

This is the briefest of sketches about what this chapter will cover and what it has to offer. I’ll finish this by touching on the range of this chapter in highlighting the dogma of neo-Darwinism and then moving to something far more positive and constructive, a Postmodern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory. It is important to be clear between the fact of the evolutionary process and the form of the evolutionary process. There have been a range of significant developments in the last few decades, such as epigenetics and the resurgence of (neo) Lamarckian processes in evolution, and Expression will add to this. As sociological psychology bridges into the natural sciences we also bring the tools for epistemological revision and this underlines the evolutionary process from which expression emerges, with natural selection one of several mechanisms and that is a return to a classical Darwinian position. There are technical aspects of this including the generating of a scale through assimilation/accommodation – adaptation – adjustment/adoption linking the evolutionary and expressive process. The postmodern synthesis also benefits from the triple helix of evolutionary theorist/biologist Richard Lewontin whose work inthis area is very similar to the trilectic in terms of causes and effects/effects and causes. Moreover, adding in James Lovelock’s Gaia theory, and for the first time we can move towards a general theory of nature, different but not detachedfrom culture. This deepens our understanding of how the world works, and works together. There is a relative concert betweenmind and culture, and between culture and nature. That relationship can be one of tension, the focus of Chapter six ‘Easter Planet’.

27

What is Darwin(ism)? - Darwin(ism) and Culture - Theexplanatory power of Sociological Psychology over EvolutionaryPsychology - A Postmodern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory –Lecture series ‘A Sociology of Evolutionary Theory’ - AGeneral Theory of Nature.

Lecture Series: While the previous lecture series’ have greater interest from across the social sciences, arts and humanities this series also benefits students from the biological and/or natural sciences. The Sociology of Evolutionary Theory exposes them to critical thinking rooted in the social sciences, and gives the social scientists an important differenceto Expression’s detail. We live in an interconnected world and interdisciplinary lecture series have to reflect that mix.

28

Chapter 4 The Williams Ether

“Well I think the key thing is to acknowledge the role ofculture but not to treat it as some autonomous force, some surrounding gas, or some force like gravity that just magically causes people to behave.”37 - Steven Pinker (my emphasis)

“Across the millennia, the author is speaking, clearly and silently, inside your head, directly to you. Writingis perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people, citizens of distant epochs, who never knew one another. Books break the shackles of time ― proof that humans can work magic.”38 – Carl Sagan (my emphasis)

This chapter is not about how culture ‘magically’ does anything. It is about the mechanics and ultimately measurementof culture, understanding its underlying causality and the approach that allows this level of understanding is Theoretical Sociophysics. Theoretical Sociophysics is an approach that bridges from the social sciences into the physical sciences. Whilst the social sciences can be viewed and understood as the human sciences from the natural and/or biological sciences, they are the ‘virtual sciences’ from the perspective of the physical realm. It is knowable and ultimately measureable and that is the journey of this chapter. There is history of social science trying to understand the physical world, and vice versa. There have beenseveral authors associated with different Sociophysics approaches, and the International Sociological Association hasan established research committee on Sociocyberbetics39 (systems science). Coming from the other direction, recently theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has stated that philosophy is dead40, and has commented on the requirement for humankind to colonise other planets in order to survive. Former Astronomer Royal, cosmologist Martin Rees’ book Our Final Century gives humankind a 50/50 chance or making it to the end of the century41. When theoretical physicist Richard Feynam’s lecture series on “A Scientist Looks at Society” went to press, it was entitled The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist42. As interesting as these contributions are they cannot

29

tell you about the mechanics of culture. Physics can’t tell you about how meaning works, but theoretical sociophysics can.

Part OneThe fundamental challenge of the physical sciences is to unitethe world of the very small (quantum) with the world at the very large scale (gravity), and in the social sciences the challenge is similar. The difference is that we are uniting the small of individual/mind, and big collective society/culture. Sociology as a term was named by Auguste Compte after his preferred option ‘social physics’43 had already been coined by Adolphe Quetelet. Quetelet had a deep interest in measurement, the focus of part three of this chapter, and the ultimate test of dimension which is what we are trying to understand in a different, fuller way here. PartOne deals with the history and etymology of physics associatedterms and reminds of their human social world of action origins, and touches on how an understanding of the virtual world sharpens our understanding of the physical world. We need to become familiar with the terms of the discipline. I will included an A-Z in this section but to varying degrees they are familiar terms to social science, and more so for thephysical sciences. Relativity, time, information, mass, laws, meaning, gravity, system and reality are just some of these terms whose history we have to be more aware and comfortable with.

Part TwoLooks at these terms in action. We’re going beyond the historyand etymology of these terms to a more technical look at them as social world of action phenomena. This is from the vantage of the present after a lot of these terms have been appropriated by the physical sciences to the point they seem purely physical domain phenomena but it’s important to note that process of association is a cultural one itself. Culture is associative and causal. In understanding that causality at its fullest we need to look at these terms, their workings andvirtual structure. It is poignant that from reading The Social Construction of Reality, that ToC promotes the view that reality isn’t everything, but a very specific, rangey human something.

30

In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking now refers to ‘model dependent realism’44 and this is in harmony with the assertion that reality is the human level engagement, the relative engagement with the world around us. The discovery of placetime is important as is the time trilectic which shows how placetime, meantime and spacetime interact, and how we canunderstand information better. We’re working through the virtual mechanics of culture here, slowing the world down and trying to understand the invisible structure. Raymond Williamscalled culture “the structure of feeling”45, a phrase that still resonates with insight. Another major development of this work is to locate meaning as a virtual gravitation held between people, only through interaction. The feel’d as (noun and verb) is the sum total of all conversational mediums that we have covered previously. The internet/web is one of many ofthese mediums, and “searching for wi-fi” is an accessible way of understanding this virtual dimension. When we go on holidaywe “soak up” the local culture, and theoretical sociophysics helps to illuminate that process. I’m not saying the feel’d exists independently like Rupert Sheldrake’s morphogenetic (action) fields46. Cultural feel’ds are interactional, and all around us. Einstein lectured that the Ether must exist for thephysical world in some sense and he discussed a range of Ethers.47 The Cultural feel’d is the Williams Ether of conversational mediums all around, with a relative weight for each and every mind, or “observer” as physics terms. By bringing these action, and interaction terms together we can move towards measurement. Einstein discovered the relationshipbetween energy and matter in the physical world, the next partshows energy and matter(s) are related at the virtual level aswell.

Part ThreeThe final part of this chapter is another step up. At the beginning of this chapter the phrase "All social movements arevectors through placetime" will mean little or nothing. By this time you'll have a better understanding of that and otherrelated actions. The focus on this section will be the true defining character of dimension, that of measurement. Boyd & Richerson wrote 'Built for Speed' about culture, and Gould called culture "the Lamarckian juggernaut". The idea that culture can have a speed, and a speed that we can measure can

31

initially bemuse but as this chapter unfolds then it'll all become apparent. Buckminster Fuller's notion of 'energy slaves' got me on track to this initially about ten years ago.As Berger reminds, we create the plough, we drive the plough, but over time the plough drives us. There is a relationship between humans and artefacts, and artefacts and humans and thenet effect of that is one of driving culture on, and culture driving us on as well, and at a pace we can measure. We need to bring together all the actions that we covered in the last section and show how they relate before the culture equation is revealed.

The notion of an equation at the heart of human interaction isfar from mechanical. It is magical. We are the equation, and the motivation driving theoretical sociophysics can relate back to this quote from Darwin, “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.”48 To get to the laws of institution we need to understand the laws of motion and notion that make up culture as a way, weigh, wave and weave of life(style).

Theoretical Sociophysics – The Social Sciences and Physics –Etymology of synonymous terms – Indepth explanation of rangeof elements of Theoretical Sociophysics – Mechanism andMeasurement – Culture Equation - Way, Weigh, Weave and Wave oflife(style).

32

Lecture Series: ‘The Williams Ether: An Introduction to Theoretical Sociophysics’ would be an undergraduate lecture series with plenty of scope to develop postgraduate courses aswell. Time as a virtual environment in formation (information) all around us is an awareness the social sciences are duty bound to explain, and this approach enables social and physical science to achieve that like no other. By slowing down the workings of the social world and looking at the mechanics of meaning around us, this deeper understanding can be taken intoother aspects of their social studies and make them more effective students, researchers, thinkers and even pioneers insocial science. Neuroscientist William Calvin has written about “the mind’s big bang”49, and anthropologist Richard Kleinof the “big bang” of human consciousness50. Just like the physical big bang, new laws emerged from culture’s virtual dimension that are knowable and measurable.

Section 3

Personas Culturis (The Human Effect)

“Historical experiment after experiment reveals the same answer: we are a fluke of nature, a quirk of evolution, a glorious contingency.”51 - Michael Shermer

33

This section is about the majestic menace that is humankind. We are the only species without a natural environment and from2007 most humans now live in cities, a completely artificial human-made setting. Such is the human effect on our planet that the geological changes over the last 300 years of industrial activity have coined a new term for a geological age: The Anthropocene52. The human impact on our environment and on climate change is well documented and this section looks atthe human effect on our planet, and how we recognise ourselvesand what effect that can have

Chapter 5 Wha’s Like Us? asks a question in Scots slang Who Is Like Us? While all species are different, only one species is different in dimension, in measure to all other species. Edward O. Wilson writes that “Homo sapiens, the first truly freespecies, is about to decommission natural selection, the forcethat made us.”53 We have a detailed classification system for all the species that have come from the evolutionary process, but that same system of thinking in naming our species doesn’tcapture our range of behaviours in what is a biologically rooted taxonomy. We are not just looking for a precision in our theory of humankind and culture, but also sophisticating important areas where past thinking is now inadequate. There is no other species like us on the planet now, or over the past 4 billion years. This chapter looks at our history and our achievements over the many revolutions that have brought us to this point, including the scientific and technological revolution that has made us a truly global species, aware of our galaxy and even the universe and able to travel into space, to land on the moon, rewrite DNA and write moving musicand split the atom. Our current classification system fails torecord this about being human and Personas culturis is a more accurate term for who we are, in our past, present and future.

Easter Planet is the title of Chapter 6 and looks at our ecological impact on the planet. While there has been a wealthof output on this in recent decades this body of work is the first to platform this argument on a theory of culture, a system that is different in dimension to the natural world andthis is a game-changing moment. Different doesn’t mean better and at all times in this thesis I am keen to stress that humans are different in dimension, but not detached from the

34

natural world. If we contrast this with the evolutionary theorists who over-metaphorise from evolutionary theory, then all human activity is ‘natural’, something I totally reject. Human activity corrodes the very aggregate of the natural world and a mature awareness of who we are as a species, and where we are is an awareness that re-engages with the natural world. The main driver of the industrial period has been free market capitalism and this is critiqued in this chapter with aneed for redirection towards a more person centred economic system of Developmentalism. We are at a defining moment and turning point in human history where we realise that we have to take control over our control of the planet, and respect our relationship with the natural world and that requires a big idea to bring that together, and in Rene Dubos’ 11th commandment we have such an idea. Understanding the differencebetween culture and nature, the difference between humans and all other life is not about raising humans onto a pedestal. Itis about realising that humans have a responsibility to shape and direct the course of expression rather than fob off the human effect as part of the evolutionary process. It is not.Wha’s Like Us?  “This is one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.”54 - Neil Armstrong Humans are different but not detached from the natural world. It’s important to note that now and throughout this and other chapters. There is at times an often over-reluctance to acknowledge the dimension level of human difference (cultural expression) from plants and animals (natural evolution) from arange of scientists and theorists, but not from this one. Or the world of social science, arts and humanities, an entire epistemological spectrum that specialises in a single species:humankind. While there is nothing artificial in the nature setting, almost everything that makes up the social world of humankind is artificial, including artefacts, art, articles, articulation, artists and artisans. Our single species has almost 7,000 languages and even more cultures. The central contention of this chapter is that the biological taxonomy is inadequate in classifying humankind and we require a cultural taxonomy to accurately reflect what it is that defines being human.

35

 0.00001%Behaviourally modern humans are 0.00001% of life on earth. 99.9999% is the evolutionary process, and the rest is culturalexpression. Evolutionary theorist John Maynard Smith called a similar period “a trivial amount of time” in evolutionary terms, yet in the terms of cultural expression it is almost everything. In the last 40,000 years behaviourally modern humans have went through horticulture, agriculture, and the industrial process to Neil Armstrong becoming the first human to step foot on the moon, and the ability for me to express mythoughts by pressing these plastic keys and send them around the entire world within seconds. Part one of this chapter looks at that 0.00001% and highlights why the biological taxonomy is inadequate in capturing these qualities that make us human. In contrast, we can see geological classification responding to the human effect with an epoch proposed by Nobelwinning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen. The anthropocene is a recognition of the global impact our single species has had on the very aggregate of nature and the planet over the last 300 years. The next chapter Easter Planet will deal with this point in greater detail but the geological classification system is responding to humankind in a way that the biologicalsciences are not.  We need to be clear on the difference between primordial, proto-humans and humankind (proper). This will involve a review from ToC/Expression on the difference between palenoanthropology (primordial and proto-humans) and anthropology (proper ‘expressive/propulsive’ humankind). We can know all we can about primordial and proto humans and never arrive at the laws of expression. For example, we can understand the development of hand axes from the Oldowan to Acheulean over the course of 2.5 million years but that will tell us little about being human and certainly not able to explain the revolution upon revolution process of culture-proper. The 0.00001% that is behaviourally modern humankind isabout who we are as a species in comparison to primordial and proto human, and nature herself.  Being Human

36

The idea of questioning our species in relation to other partsof the living world has deep roots. Sociological enquiry emerged from such Enlightement reflection on this and related issues. While The Origin of Species was Darwin’s primary evolutionary text relating to all life, he would later write The Descent of Man in 1871 as a single volume devoted to our single species. In that book he referred to indigenous and/or aboriginal humans as “savages” and “half-humans” but this can be explained through the infancy and relative ignorance of hisanthropology and social science of the time. ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ Thomas Huxley had earlier written the book Evidence as toMan’s Place in Nature in 1863. One of Huxley’s grandsons Julian Huxley was one of the ‘super Einsteins’ who united Darwin’s evolutionary theory and Mendelian genetics in the 1930/40s as The Modern Synthesis. Indeed, Huxley wrote The Modern Synthesis in1942, before writing in 1957 that Man could “be placed in a new major grade, which might be called Psychozoa”55. This section will look at the range of being human, and how people across the fields of knowledge have expressed that.  Shermer’s quote about our flukey, quirky, contingent selves comes from his book The Believing Brain56. We could say that we are the believing species, indeed there are books titled The Believing Primate57, and Moral, Believing Animals58. There are also books on The Dominant Animal59, The Cultural Animal60, The Social Animal61, and many more, including Aristotle’s writing that man was a ‘political animal’. We have A Cooperative Species62, the “musical species”63, The God Species64, The Accidental Species65 and Edward O. Wilson’s 2014 book The Poetic Species66. Previously Wilson has referred to Homo Proteus (shapechanger man) while discussing this same point about taxonomic classification, before expressing the view that the old Homo sapiens was the “correct diagnosis”. It is worth reminding despite Wilson’s work on Sociobiology and Gene-culture co-evolution he has never generated the accepted theory of culture, in part because he, like others, have failed to understand the fundamental character of humankind and the workings of culture. This year New Scientist magazine called our species Homo curiosum67, adding to many other references of being human, Homo Academicus68, Homo Ludens69, Homo Socious70, and Homo Aestheticus71, etc. We are the first species on the tree of life characterised by our range of cultural behaviours, rather than

37

our biology and that needs to be reflected in our classification system. A cultural taxonomy of Personas culturis can account for these cultural behaviours and future proof any and all other ways in which humankind can and will express herself, in a way that Homo sapiens sapiens cannot. To usea term from William Calvin, we don’t need to refer to Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens72, what we do need to do is make sure that wereflect who we are as a species on the most accurate possible terms and that is something the cultural taxonomy of Personas culturis can do better, fuller and richer than the present biological classification does. In 1930 we (Personas culturis)discovered that Pluto was a planet. Less than nine decades later in 2006 it was reclassified as a ‘dwarf planet’. If we can reclassify what was considered a planet in the light of new evidence, it stands to reason that arriving at the theory of culture must invite this kind of revision from ToC/Expression, that’s a demand we must make quite beyond any notion of scientific reflection. Technoosphere  In October 1960 Jane Goodall observed a chimpanzee “fishing” for termites using grass. When she relayed this, and similar examples to Louis Leakey he said “Now we must redefine tool, redefine Man, or accept chimpanzees as humans.”73 We can contrast this with neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga who writes, “And while we can use lathes to mill fine jewellery, and chimps can use stones to crack open nuts, the differences are light years apart.”74 This section will define, and redefine tool within a wider understanding of technology. Through that understanding comes an awareness of primordial tools, proto tools and tools (proper) which emerge as technology with the cultural process. To date, we have had a degree of “clumping” all of this varied, rich and historicallyexpansive behaviour under the broad rubric of ‘tool-making’ and a ToC/Expression based theory of technology brings much needed sophistication to this area. Following on from the lastsection we already have Homo faber75, Homo mechanicus76, Homo technologicus77, Homo sapiens technologicus78, Homo technicus79, and Homo interneticus80 describing ways of being human in this area. This is aided through the idea of the technoosphere81. The twittersphere is a word (and sign of /as ‘the times’) officially recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary, which

38

is only a very small part of the technoosphere, one of severalhuman spheres of activity and influence82. It is a blend of technology, and Vernadsky/Teilhard’s noosphere. In tandem with the other spheres that will be covered in this section they are comparable to the biosphere, although that is a nature rooted system. The technoosphere can help us understand the ebb and flow of culture through technology in an accessible way. Whether you are reading this on a mobile phone, laptop, PC or tablet you are part of the technoosphere right now.

If we take all the ways that humans can communicate technologically as an interconnected global network of conversational mediums, like computers, laptops, tablets, television, radio, radio phone-ins, advertising, satellites, the internet, including email, you tube, twitter, facebook, blogs, etc, mobile and landline phones, including SMS texting,picture messaging, instagram and whats app, etc. All of these are part of the technological “webs of significance” Max Weberwrote of and echoed by Clifford Geertz. Add to that print technology in the form of letters, pamphlets, books, newspapers, magazines, e-readers, journals, instructions, rules, laws, etc and we can see and feel the ubiquity of the technoosphere, which is a part of wider culture, with culture(s) of its own. So whether it’s cabled, wireless, through airwaves, radio waves, print media, visual or audible noise, this feel’d of technology, the technoosphere is the communicative ‘sphere’ and the original artificial cloud, before the cloud in cloud computing/servers came along.

If I can do even a competent job with this section then there can be no denying that humans and culture are causally different from all other life and nature. Cultural expression and Personas culturis extend from nature and we define ourselves through that constantly refreshing extension. Different in dimension, but not detached from the natural world. Mores doesn’t mean better. That takes us into chapter six which focuses on our engagement with the natural world andthe consequences of that.

One small step/One giant leap – Cultural taxonomy – 0.00001% -Humankind (proper) – Being Human – (Human) Animal/Species/Homo

39

– Personas culturis – Technoosphere – Home faber through Homotechnologicus to Homo interneticus – Artificial cloud.

Lecture Series: This will be on the cultural taxonomy of humankind covering the three sections of this chapter. This particular section involves a degree of looking ahead beyond the thesis and will involve a project aspect that can act as aprecursor to The Human Culture Project. Across all cultural expression we need to database all references to being human, as well as what cultures deem (and seem) to be the defining achievements of humankind from their perspective. The groundwork for this undertaking emerges from the work covered in this chapter. We have had two Human Genome Projects, a current Human Brain Project, we require a Human Culture Project.

Chapter Six – Easter Planet

“Earth and humanity are thus two complimentary components of a system that might be called cybernetic,since each shapes the other in a continuous act of creation….To strive for environmental quality might be considered as an eleventh commandment.” – Rene Dubos83

“There is no plan B, because there is no planet B.” – Ban Ki-Moon84

Although culture is our second nature and our primary source of experience in the world around us in our daily and life-long lives, it is not nature. This section is about the tension between the culture system of humankind and the effecton the earth system. You don’t have to look far for signs of ‘the Armageddon genre’ around us at this moment. Gaia theory’s James Lovelock has expressed the view that we could finish thecentury with just one billion people, and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees in his book Our Final Century gives humans a 50/50 chance of survival. Simply, and poignantly put by Paul Ehrlich

40

in The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment not only is nature our life support system, “Indeed, with few exceptions, every cubic inch of the biosphere has been influenced directlyor indirectly by our species.”85 Extensive damage and destruction of ecosystems has been termed ecocide. At this stagein our history it is not just beholden for the social sciencesto generate thee accepted theory of culture, but also to contribute tellingly to the debate, answers and action about the human effect on planet, and the need for humans to take control over the control that they have.

Part one We need to be clear what we mean by ‘nature’ before we begin to fully understand humankind and culture’s relationship with nature. For example, in Boyden’s The Biology of Civilisation: Understanding Human Culture as a Force in Nature runs slightly counter tothe message that ToC/Expression would state of Human Culture as a Force on Nature. Boyden himself writes, “As soon as human culture came into existence it began, through its influence on people’s behaviour, to have impacts not only on humans themselves, but also on other living systems. It evolved as a new kind of fore in the biosphere, destined eventually to bring about profound and far-reaching changes across the wholeplanet.”86 If we say we are ‘in’ nature then the behaviour fromhumankind becomes ‘natural’, but we can still realise the effect from humankind and culture within the living world on the natural world, and this is the position ToC/Expression adopts. Concerning this issue/interaction, humankind is not compared to another species, but to the forces of nature herself. Anthropologist Richard Klein writes:

“In the space of less than 40,000 years, ever more closely packed cultural ‘revolutions’ have taken humanity from the status of a relatively rare large mammal to something more like a geologic force.”87

We have the same point made by evolutionary theorist Edward O. Wilson. While Wilson, and others, are reluctant to acknowledge differences of dimension between humans and other species, he is clear about the impact humans have had on the natural world:

41

“Few will doubt that humankind has created a planet-sized problem for itself. No one wished it so, but we are the first species to become a geophysical force, altering Earth’s climate, a role previously reserved for tectonics, sun flares and glacial cycles. We are also the greatest destroyer of life since the ten-kilometer-wide meteorite landed near Yucatan and ended the Age of Reptiles sixty-five million years ago.”88

Paul Crutzen has called the geological age that coincides with the Industrial Age the anthropocene, and this idea is gaining traction and for the first time in the history of life on earth a single species would define a geological epoch. Only in the last week the IPCC has released its Fifth Assessment Synthesis report, stating with high confidence that “About half of the cumulative anthropogenicCO² emissions between 1750 and 2011 have occurred in the last 40 years.”89 With the equation outlined in Chapter 4 we account for that quickening, which is set to accelerate still further over the coming decades. It’s not just the effect, it’s also the speed of this change that is alarming.

In biology a Royal Society B paper comparing humans with 31 non-human species concluded that humans are 36,760 times more numerous than the mean for all mammalian species, and humans are ecologically abnormal. A Guardian article reporting this called humans ‘freaks of nature’90, which chimes with Shermer’squote from the previous chapter that humans are ‘flukes of nature’. We not only over-ride nature, we are doing that at a quickening, ever more burdening rate. We reached one billion humans around 1804. We reached 4 billion by 1974, 5 billion by1987, 6 billion by 1999 and 7 billion by 2012. Using Buckminster Fuller’s ‘energy slaves’ notion utilised in chapter four, there is evidence that in advanced western techno-societies the energy slave level is around 150 per person. This means that if all humankind reached this level ofenergy usage the ‘load’ on the planet would be just over one trillion humans. As I mentioned in the last chapter, human exceptionalism has resulted in our current majestic menace status.

42

In part two we’ll look at the prime mover for these changes, the economic system of capitalism. While capitalism is an economic system in action, it is a cultural system in belief. At the theoretical level, beyond notions of human evolution/expression, the defining relationship Sociology has as a subject is with capitalism and its ability to describe and prescribe on its operation. As I write this Naomi Klein’s book This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs the Climate is just out, indicating how current these ideas are. This follows Thomas Pickety’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century and about the inequality we can associate with capitalism. In 2008 the then richest manin the world, Bill Gates gave a speech at Davos on the need for “creative capitalism”, a 21stCentury version of capitalism to address inequality. Rather than ‘trickle down’ the capitalist system is characterised by a concentration of wealth, and this will be the focus of this section as well as consumption and the corrosion of the ‘free resource’ natural world from this process of globalising, short-term gain. WhileToC/Expression has real insight to promote in these and other chapters, there has been extensive work done on these areas, and to a degree it is about bringing some of these disparate components together, and weaving them with ToC/Expression against real experience. Just as we can label humankind the majestic menace, so too we can frame capitalism in these terms, and how we manipulate and manage this economic system over the coming decades will set the parameters on what humankind can do to prevent an Easter Planet situation occurring.

In part three planet sized solutions are offered for this global problem, or The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History as Elizabeth Kolbert’s 2014 book is titled. There are two centralideas here: Rene Dubos’ eleventh commandment91, and a new economic approach of Developmentalism. To discuss the notion of an eleventh commandment is to understand this as a global and timeless law of humankind, and this statement of our humanity, to re-engage with the natural world is timeous and telling for all interest groups across humankind. Developmentalism will become the economic ‘range theory’ rooted on a simple statement, that “the rich are too rich, andthe poor are too poor”92. (a) Developmentalism is not capitalism

43

(b) Development is not an evolutionary, or natural process, (c) The ‘mentalism’ is a constant reminder that this system isa human product, “the visible hand” to capitalism’s seemingly “invisible hand”, and (d) it acts as a brake on the industrialising process, and a change in understanding of nature as a free resource and this is in tandem with the eleventh commandment.

It’s time to change, before we run out of time.

Second Nature and Nature - Ecocide – Energy slaves –Anthropocene – Freaks of nature – Capitalism as prime mover –Creative capitalism – The Sixth Extinction - An EleventhCommandement – Developmentalism – The Visible Hand – Time tochange.

Lecture Series: I remember sitting through the transition fromfeudalism to capitalism lectures at Glasgow University which

44

at times was a little heavy, yet very important. There is a transition here from nature only, to nature and culture becoming two interacting systems. In under three centuries capitalism has shaped the social world of humankind, and the natural world like no other economic system in history and howthat has come about, the effect, solutions and importance of ‘range’ thinking is the new transition debate. The difference is that this is living history, with these transitional rhythms between economy and ecology going on around about us right now. Students can study and shape this process.

45

Conclusion – It’s Our Time

“You are the change”93 - Barack Obama

“We are betrayed into captivity with our own cooperation.”94 – Peter Berger

I was born in 1970. In my time I have seen the end of the ColdWar, the end of apartheid, and the rise of gay rights. I have seen how humans caused ozone depletion, detected this and thenremedied this. Since then we’ve had the emerging climate crisis which is defining of not just my time, but our time. Weneed to understand that our collective behaviour isn’t just cultural, it is temporal in a very unique way. Meantime involves a level of self-causality not seen anywhere else in the living world. To echo President Obama’s words, not only “You are the change”, but we are too.

The human story is tellingly a biographical one, rather than abiological one. Now that we have the mechanisms for that process of change, and the knowledge that we drive the change we can be aware that we don’t just create and continue “our time”, but we pass it on as well. This will be a short chapterbecause it is one in progress, constantly. When you engage in sociological theory it can get heavy, even very heavy and withso much to lament about the current world and its direction, with the body of work this thesis summary embodies there is genuine reason to be hopeful and mindful that our generation can be the ones that turned the direction of not just our time, but set in motion ideas, and ideals that can influence all generations (and times) to come.

To understand culture is to understand its relationship with time, and time’s relationship with culture. Our time is a reflection of who we are and what we’re doing. Going forward, we have a responsibility to ensure ‘our time’ is an expressionof the best versions of ourselves.

We don’t need to get that process right, but we do need to getit started.

46

47

1 Huxley, Julian & Kettlewell, H.B.D. (1965). Charles Darwin and his world. London: Thames & Hudson. p92. (1974 Book Club Associates version, printed in UK by Jarrold and Sons Ltd, Norwich)

2 Human Universe 2014, television programme, BBC2, UK, 7th October, Episode One “Apeman – Spaceman”.

3 Wilson, Edward.O (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. London: Little, Brown and Company. p202.

4 Richerson J, Peter & Boyd, Robert (2005). Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. London: The University of Chicago. p254. (2006 paperback version)

5 Geertz, Clifford (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. London: Fontana Press. p4. (1993 print version)

6 Geertz, Clifford (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. p54.

7 Wilson, Edward. O. (1975). Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology. In Sociobiology: A New Synthesis. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p547-574. Sociobiology is one of the four areas that evolutionary psychology lists in its seminal The Adapted Mind. Genetic Psychology, Cognition and Culture, and Behaviour Evolution being the other three. Edward O. Wilson through Sociobiology, and it’s influence on evolutionary psychology, through gene-culture co-evolution and then his work on the unity of knowledge has been the most driven and diverse evolutionary theorists attempting to ‘crack’ culture to the required level. It’s important to note that Wilson acknowledges that humans alone inhabit ‘the fourth pillar of evolution’, and there is ToC, the trilectic and expression emerging from the evolutionary process is completely compatible with a sociobiological approach to life in the nature setting, but the explanatory capacity of this reduces tellingly when it comes to humans and cultural level social life.

8 Lumsden, Charles J. and Wilson, Edward O. (1981). Genes, Mind and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. London: Harvard University Press. This is the book gene-cultureco-evolutionary theory comes from. The timeline is significant here. 1975 Edward O.Wilson releases Sociobiology, but questions and theory of culture still remain. Despite this he came back with the 1978 On Human Nature for which he won the 1979 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-fiction. This was a year after Carl Sagan won the same prize for The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence. So this 1981 represents another approach to sophisticate our understanding of culture, something the previous approach had fallen short of. It is significant that in 2001we have The Unity of Knowledge along with Harvard lectures where Wilson talks of the need for the social sciences to generate a general theory of culture. Despite thesedifferent, sustained attempts to realise such a theory Wilson, among others, continues to assert that such a theory would come within the auspices and influenceof the biological and/or natural sciences. ToC as a body of work includes a rejection of this notion.

9 Berger, Peter & Luckmann, Thomas (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books. p207-208. (1991 print version). I first came across reference to ‘sociological psychology’ whilst studying Contemporary Sociological Theory at Glasgow University as a 3rd year undergraduate. I developed these ideas into my MA Thesis ‘A Sociology of Human Agency: Understanding Action’. Berger & Luckmann suggested that the principles within the book lended itself to such an approach and I took this as a challenge to see if sociology and psychology could be connected into a discipline.

10 Arnopoulos, Paris (2005). Sociophysics: Cosmos and Chaos in Nature and Culture. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. xxiv. When I was studying Economic and Social Historyat Leicester University 1998-2001, in 1999 I was working on Theoretical Sociophysics and sent Roger Penrose a summary of what I was sketching out because at the time he was working on mind and consciousness. I didn’t get a reply but I continued working on this and the fruits can be seen in Chapter Four ‘The Williams Ether’, where the social sciences and the physical sciences have much in common. Arnopoulos’ book is an interesting read and attempts to deal with ‘Global Ecology; Evolutionary Biology; Macroeconomics; Sociological Theory; Philosophy of Social Science; Theoretical Physics; Thermodynamics; Macro-history; Behavioural Science; General Systems Theory; and Interdisciplinary Studies.’ The approach that ToC/Expression embodies is a commitment to understanding the social world of humankind from the social, natural and physical sciences. There is a difference between bridging into the physical sciences always from the social sciences, and actually going into the physical sciences. Theoretical Sociophysics is the approachthat does this, and as we work through towards equation, does this best.

11 Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Nature of Normal Science. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. London: The University of Chicago Press. p23-34. This is from 50th Anniversary 2012 edition.

12 Evolution 2001, television programme, PBS, USA, Episode One ‘Darwin's Dangerous Idea’. So great does Daniel Dennett think Darwin’s Idea was/is that he called it “the universal acid” in his 1996 book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Significantly (meaningfully) on p521 he writes, “I urge caution alongside the enthusiasm I hope I have kindled in you. I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection. The truly dangerous aspect of Darwin’s idea isits seductiveness. Second-rate versions of the fundamental ideas continue to bedevil us, so we must keep a close watch, correcting each other as we go.” In Chapter Two ‘Beyond Darwin(ism)’ I’ll show how memetics, Dennett’s preferred Neo-Darwinian approach to culture is one such second-rate version.

13 Baumeister, Roy F. (2005). The Cultural Animal: Human Nature, Meaning, and Social Life. New York: Oxford University Press. p391.

14 PROFILE/: Richard Dawkins The Devil’s Chaplain? By Brian Leith 2003, television programme, BBC4, UK, 24th February.

15 Reference to EAMES is a constant reminder of design and human foresight, that wecan associate with the Eames classic chair as a product of human creative foresight. Natural selection doesn’t make artifacts and as we move on into the thesis and see the dangers of the industrial process, perhaps that is with good reason.

16 Darwin, Charles (1859). The Origin of Species. 6th ed. Dent, London: Everyman's Library. p38. 1982 copy of the 1971 J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd edition. The fuller sectionreads, “One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal’s or plant’s own good, but to man’s use or fancy”. Despite Darwin referring to the Principle of Selection on the next page and others these are two fundamentally different principles of change here. One is evolution, the other expression. Failing to get to grips with these differences is something that Darwin and all other attempts to Darwinise (when the process is to Newtonise) culture since.

17 Baumeister, Roy F. (2005). The Cultural Animal: Human Nature, Meaning, and Social Life. New York: Oxford University Press. P289.

18 Gould, Stephen Jay (1997, June 26 ). Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism, New York Review of Books. Available: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Gould.html. Last accessed 16th Oct 2014.

19 Richerson, Peter J. and Boyd, Robert. (2001). Built For Speed, Not For Comfort: Darwinian Theory and Human Culture. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 23 (Special Issue - Darwinian Evolution Across the Disciplines), p423 - 463.

20 Lumsden, Charles J. and Wilson, Edward O. (1981). Genes, Mind and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. London: Harvard University Press. p375. In the Glossary the authors write ‘Leash Principle The principle deduced from natural selection theory that epigenetic rules will tend to evolve in such a way as to make individuals choose certain culturgens over others; in other words, “the genes hold culture on aleash,” (See also Epigenetic rule.) In Chapter Four of this thesis The Williams Ether ratherthan some genetic leash, the virtual world be shown to consists of a web of conversational mediums, with a virtual gravitation that can be more fully understood biographically, rather than biologically.

21 Darwin, Charles (1859). The Origin of Species. London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd. p21-49 'Variation Under Domestication'. (1982 print version)

22 The social theorist at this level has to be driven to make this as understandable to the widest possible audience. A theory of humankind has to be accessible to all of humankind, which is a difficult enterprise but not impossible.This demands a topology and/or illustrative range like the trilectic where the relationships can help assist and nudge the readers awareness forward. Likewise, understanding culture in a single term, an anagram of the word itself to convey a deep meaning is another way, one of many tools and approaches to be used in developing and presenting not just the general theory of culture, but an accessiblegeneral theory of culture. This can’t be like Einstein’s general theory of

relativity, it has to be accessible. It has to be meaningful to many, if not most or all.

23 PROFILE/: Richard Dawkins The Devil’s Chaplain? By Brian Leith 2003, television programme, BBC4, UK, 24th February.

24 Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda & Tooby, John (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. This book dealswith 1. Genetic Psychology, 2. Cognition and Culture, 3. Behaviour Evolution, 4. Sociobiology. This is one of the 10+ schools of thought that have sought to generate an accepted theory of culture from the evolutionary perspective. Part of Chapter Three will be looking at some of these approaches, including evolutionary psychology. At all times it is important to understand culture in detail, and difference with other approaches and fields of phenomena.

25 Ridley, Matt (2004). The Agile Gene: How Nature Turns on Nurture. New York: First Perennial. p16-17. The 2003 edition of the book was published in UK by Fourth Estate, a Division of Harper Collins and the book was called Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human.

26 Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love. New York: First Mariner Books. p12. The fuller quote is, “Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwoodoutlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence; the gift of revulsion against its implications; the gift of foresight – something utterly foreign to the blundering short-term ways of natural selection - and the gift of internalizing thevery cosmos.”There are a number of very important points here. 1. According to Dawkins this giftof foresight is something “utterly foreign” to natural selection, and yet his theory of memetics is one of the 10+ schools of thought that have tried to Darwinise culture. 2. All of the features that he highlights of other animals, humans have exceeded through culture. Our technology enables us to outswim sharks, outrun cheetahs, outclimb capushins, outpower elephants and even outlive redwoods. In many cases it is humans that decide whether some of these species even live or die. 3. We don’t internalise a localised, natural niche because we don’t have one. Modern humans do not have an ecological niche they are adapted to in the same way evolutionary theory holds for all other forms of life. Furthermore, to say we have “the gift of internalizing the very cosmos” only underlines how as a species we transcend the evolutionary process into expression and out into the cosmos.

27 Kaku, Michio (2014). The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind . London: Allen Lane. Kaku offers a space-time theory of consciousness where he defines self-awareness as: “Self-awareness is creating a model of the world and simulating the future in which you appear.” This is:

1. Compatible with Stephen Hawking’s ‘model dependent realism’. More generally this touches on the physics reference to ‘observer’ and ‘observer effect’, oras ToC/Expression terms it ‘seeming’.

2. Compatible with ToC/Expressions’ meantime and placetime, and their interaction with spacetime. There is a qualitative difference between temporal sequence/spacetime and the dimension of times/meantime and placetime.

28 Ehrlich, Paul. June 27th, 2008. San Franciso, CA. longnow.org and You Tube ‘The Evolution of Culture’ quote is 1min – 1 min12 secs into the 4 min 8 secs clip. Seminar at the Long Now Foundation on his book The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and theEnvironment.

29 Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H. (2008). The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment. Washington: Island Press. p5. There is a profound difference between‘Newtonising’ the social sciences, and ‘Darwinising’ them. To Newtonise is to seek the underlying causal mechanisms for all cultures. This doesn’t explain all cultural phenomena so that people stop studying culture, anymore than people stopped doing physics after Newton and stopped doing biology, botany, zoology and ethology after Darwin. To Darwinise however is to say something noticeably different. It is to say that to get to these causal mechanisms evolutionary theory (often referred to as ‘Darwinism’) has more than metaphorical value, and has the explanatory capacity to explain culture to the level of mechanism that we can associate with a Newton or a Darwin. ToC, Sociological Psychology, and Theoretical Sociophysics are a complete rejection of such a view. These causal mechanisms can be located, and are within this body of work, but they come from the social sciences, not from the physical or the natural sciences. That underlines the specialism we associates with the scientific endeavour, although it limits deeply neo-Darwinian pretension that culture is amenable to general theory level of explanation from evolutionary theory.

30 I was first aware of the possibility of a revision to neo-Darwinism and/or the Modern Synthesis when listening to a 1987 debate in Oxford between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Gould says, “My claim about the nature and status of Darwinism is that we're beginning to see the coalescence of a new and quite different theory from that that represented the strict Darwinism of the so-called modern synthesis. A new and different theory with a Darwinian core is being forged,exciting and fruitful theory in the very best sense that first of all it is quite different in many important respects from what was the standard take.” (my emphasis) This new and different theory has been called The Extended Synthesis, in Pigliucci, M. & Müller, G. B. ‘Evolution: The Extended Synthesis’ (MIT Press, 2010), and the Postmodern Synthesis in ‘Towards a postmodern synthesis of evolutionary biology’ Eugene V. Koonin (Cell Cycle, March 2009), and Jablonka The Four Dimensions of Evolution. Only in the last few weeks the Journal Nature the question ‘Doesevolutionary theory need a rethink?’ was asked including reference to The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) as well as reference to support for such an extension from a range of fields, including the social sciences. http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080 There could be well a biological science based approach to The EES, but a Postmodern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory would be an epistemological revision from the social sciences.

31 Lewontin, Richard (2001). The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism and Environment. London: HarvardUniversity Press. p100-101. "Taken together, the relations of genes, organisms, andenvironments are reciprocal relations in which all three elements are both causes and effects. Genes and environment are both causes or organisms, which are, in turn, causes of environments, so that genes become causes of environments as mediated by the organism."

32 Lovelock, James (2006). The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back - and How We Can Still Save Humanity. London: Allen Lane (an imprint of Penguin Books). p15-38, 'What is Gaia?'.

33 1961 The Long Revolution, I’ll need to dig out the book and the quote/page wherethis comes from. Milieu looks a related term but structure of feeling leads in wellto the feel’d which is another tip of the hat to Raymond Williams, Ray’s World.

34 Darwin, Charles. (1860). Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles, 28 [Sept 1860] Letter 2931. Available: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2931. Last accessed 15th Oct 2014.

35 Darwin mentioned this in 3 letters in late September 1860. The difference between natural preservation and natural selection is an important one. Selection is what humans do and natural selection was metaphorised from a narrow view of whatDarwin thought human creativity could achieve. Developments in human genomics wouldseem like science-fiction to Darwin if he were here now. The evolutionary process has a relationship with temporal sequence and in the main requires vast geological stretches to affect the kind of changes we see in the natural world. When humans (and culture) emerge from the evolutionary process our relationship with temporal sequence becomes one of meantime and placetime and without a sophisticated understanding of how expression works it is all too easy to condense the vast storyof nature into the much shorter story of evolutionary change and then present thatprocess of change in ‘selection- like’ terms. The normal state of nature is no/little change, is of nature as a preserving force/action and one of buffer rather than the efficiency that can characterise human culture, especially mature capitalistic culture.

36 Dawkins, Richard (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: Norton. p4. Design wasthe ‘problem’ during the 19thC, but the issue now has moved on to drives, in part because we know who designs the social world of humankind, humans do, not natural selection. The idea of cultural drives, quite different from biological drives needs tobe realised by social science and wider knowledge.

37 Pinker, Steven. (1998). The Darwin Debate. Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjJAwbc5IaE Last accessed 26th Oct 2014. 11mins13secs-11mins25secs. This debate was chaired by Melvyn Bragg and included Steven Pinker, Jonathan Miller, Steve Jones and Meredith Small. It was held at The Linnean Society of London, Piccadilly,London. According to this tv database website it aired on BBC2 on 1st January 1998.http://thetvdb.com/?tab=episode&seriesid=79660&seasonid=60871&id=609891&lid=7

38 Sagan, Carl. (1980). Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Episode 11 "The Persistence of Memory". Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkQEnRDhPUU. Last accessed 26th Oct 2014.The You Tube video is a short clip of this quote, and part of the 13 episode Cosmosseries broadcast between 28th Sept 1980 to 21st Dec 1980. Episode 11 was ‘aired’ across The Williams Ether on the 7th Dec 1980.

39 International Sociological Association. (1998). On Sociocybernetics. Available: http://sociocybernetics.wordpress.com/about/. Last accessed 26th Oct 2014.

40 Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design. London: Bantam Press. P5. Hawking follows up this quite ridiculous statement with “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discover in our quest for knowledge.” ToC/Expression utilises all the skills and subjects from the social sciences, arts and humanities and philosophy is one of them. ToC/Expression is not a product of physics but of critical thinking and rigour from the social sciences so the very notion that Hawking proclaims philosophy is an extreme, and erroneous statement to make.

41 Rees, Martin (2003). Our Final Century. London: Arrow Books. The full title of the book is Our Final Century: Will Civilisation Survive the Twenty-First Century? In part, the ineffectiveness of the social sciences to express what people, including academics from neighbouring domains feel (and seem) invites them on, in a very real sense, towrite about areas which are located along the social epistemological spectrum.

42 Feynman, Richard (1998). The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Helix Books. It is a collection of three previously unpublished public lectures given by Feynman the University of Washington in April, 1963. In the words of Theoretical Sociophysics this book would be called The Causal Impression of It All.

43 Quetelet, Adolphe (1835). Sur l'homme et le développement de ses facultés, ou Essai de physique sociale. 2 volumes. This included Essays on social physics was translated into English in 1842 as ‘Treatise on Man’. What I have to offer marries the necessary level of theoretical insight from Compte’s qualitative approach to Sociology, with Quetelet’s statistical and quantitative focus. I’m keen to state that re-state thatthe notion of an equation for culture is a liberating one and not a depressing one.Understanding that we are not tellingly under the instruction of genetic code but through ‘mutual information’ (Vlatko Vedral’s 2001 Decoding Reality, Oxford University Press) and this new realm of negotiated causation we call reality. We create reality. We can think about it. We can measure it as well.

44 Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design. London: Bantam Press. p7.

45 Williams, Raymond (1961). The Long Revolution. London: Chatto & Windus. p66. For me,the ‘structure of feeling’ doesn’t just rephrase the question ‘What is culture?’ but it expands it enough to offer some of the paths that the theorist has to understand and then bring together, structure and feeling. Any approach that spends

too much time spinning plates on one to the neglect of the other can’t reach the underlying mechanisms of the Expressive process, and while Theoretical Sociophysicsis a fruitful approach for the social and physical sciences and more generally human knowledge its roots are in the social sciences, the human sciences, with humankind its main and consistent focus. This chapter on structure to the equation level is only important in relation to the feel’d of humankind.

46 Sheldrake, Rupert (1988). The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and The Habits of Nature. New York: Times Books. This book follows from the 1981 A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. There is a real difference between an action system and an interaction system. It is worth noting though that culture’s memory of social organisation can appear like a separate action system at times, while still being an interactional system with humankind. As we sleep there is a massive global network of data centres, cabling, both IT hardware and software, and the cloud as part of the ‘technoosphere’ and we have to be wary of the asymmetries between action and interactional systems, especially systems that we/humankind create and continue.

47 Einstein, Albert. (1922). Ether and the Theory of Relativity. Available: http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html. Last accessed 20th Oct 2014. Einstein gave an address/lecture in German on 5th May 1920 at the University of Leiden.

48 Darwin, Charles (c1909). The Voyage of the Beagle. New York: P.F. Collier & Son. p503.Cosimo: New York, 2008 edition. This is why we do social science, or certainly it’swhy I am involved in the social sciences. I am interested, and at times obsessed bythe laws of second nature, of how culture works. On the way to getting there multiple cultures/belief systems have been wrong, and that includes scientific cultures as well. Slavery was legally abolished, and in my lifetime apartheid in South Africa stopped because of the laws of nature, or genetic/biological changes. These changes to what was considered ‘human rights’ and ‘human’ and ‘right’ behaviour came about because of human action, which we can understand as part of the laws of second nature. This resulted in changes to human laws, reflecting changing times and changing the physical and virtual environment (times) for subsequent generations. Using Darwin’s own terms, we can redeem our sins.

49 Calvin, William H. (2004). A Brief History Of The Mind: From Apes to Intellect and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. p150-160. To talk/write of big bang is to comment onthe origins of a dimension, in this case human mind.

50 Klein, Richard G. and Edgar, Blake (2002). The Dawn of Human Culture. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The subtitle on the front page of the book is ‘A Bold New Theory On What Sparked The “Big Bang” Of Human Consciousness.” The book refers to the ‘creative explosion’ 50,000 years ago, which has been called the “big bang” of culture.

51 Shermer, Michael (2011). The Believing Brain. New York: Times Books. p202.

52 Crutzen, Paul J. and Schwägerl, Christian. (2011). Living in the Anthropocene: Toward a New Global Ethos . Available: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/living_in_the_anthropocene_toward_a_new_global_ethos/2363/. Last accessed 29th Oct 2014. The idea of the Anthropocene “the recent age ofman” was coined in 2000 by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer. No other single species in the history of life on earth has defined a geological epoch. This adds weight to the idea of renaming our species Personas Culturis because it is culture that defines the very processes that have led to/through the industrial and technological times we can see around us and have transformed the planet over the last three centuries. Klein (2002) wrote that “culture is like a geologic force”, and Edward O.Wilson (1998:310) wrote that “we are the first species to become a geophysical force, altering Earth’s climate, a role previously reserved for tectonics, sun flares, and glacial cycles.” Wilson writes this 2 yearsbefore Crutzen and Stoermer use the term Anthropocene. I’ve mentioned this elsewherein this summary but this point is so grave it cannot be overlooked.

53 Wilson, Edward.O (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. London: Little, Brown and Company. P309.

54 Whitehouse, David (2009). One Small Step: The inside story of space exploration. London: Quercus. p127. On July 20th, 1969 Neil Armstrong, followed by Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to step on to the moon. The small step is a physical statement, and the “giant leap” a virtual reference on the power of human cultural expression to be able to send Apollo 11, and land the Lunar Module Eagle on the moon almost 400,000km away (at the time).

55 Huxley, Julian (1957). New Bottles For New Wine. London: Chatto & Windus Ltd. p91.

56 Shermer, Michael (2011). The Believing Brain. New York: Times Books.

57 Edited by Murray, Michael and Schloss, Jeffrey P. (2009). The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

58 Smith, Christian (2009). Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

59 Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H. (2008). The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment. Washington: Island Press.

60 Baumeister, Roy F. (2005). The Cultural Animal: Human Nature, Meaning, and Social Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

61 Aronson, Elliot (2011). The Social Animal. 11th ed. New York: Worth Publishers Inc.,U.S.

62 Bowles, Samuel and Gintis, Herbert Gintis (2011). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

63 Sacks, Oliver (2007). Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain. Basingstoke: Pan MacMillan. Edward O. Wilson’s idea of biophilia, that there is an instinctive bond between human beings and other living systems has been applied to music by Oliver Sacks. As he writes in the book, “Music is part of being human” and “We humans are a musical species no less than a linguistic one”. Music and language would be part of what this cultural taxonomy can account for.

64 Lynas, Mark (2011). The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans. London: Fouth Estate. This has subsequently been published as The God Species: How Humans Really Can Save the Planet...

65 Gee, Henry (2013). The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gee writes, "There is nothing special about being human, any more than there is anything special about being a guinea pig or a geranium. This insight should allow you see the world afresh, and marvel at each and every creature as it is, for its innate wonder and uniqueness, not as a way station towards some nebulous, imagined transcendence." (xi:2013) If I do even a competent job with this chapter then the idea of human exceptionalism, highlightingthe dimension level difference between culture and nature, between artificial and nature, between evolution and expression, can be seen as one of difference but not detachment. There is a lasting assumption that expressing the view that humans are different makes humans special. Gee and others have to realise that human expression and decision making doesn't rival the species in nature, but nature herself. No other species has made it off this planet, or have the technological magnitude to send a rover to Mars or accelerate the extinction rate by between 100-1,000 times the natural rate. Human exceptionalism to date has been a good and bad thing. We remain the majestic menace.

66 Wilson, Edward O. and Hass, Robert (2014). The Poetic Species: A Conversation with Edward O. Wilson and Robert Hass. New York: Bellevue Literary Press.

67 Lawton, Graham. (2014). ‘Big questions, bold answers’. New Scientist: The Collection. 1,p3. Reed Business Information Ltd: London. Lawton wrote this in the editorial to the first ‘The Collection’ series from 26/03/2014. “This is arguably what defines us a species. We are not so much Homo sapiens as Homo curiosum……Our curiosity knows no bounds and it has taken us a long way from the savannahs of east Africa to worlddomination and beyond”.  Tyson, Neil deGrasse. (2014). Proud to be Homo sapiens. Available: https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/528647691614433281. Last accessed 4th Nov 2014. Neil deGrasse Tyson tweeted “Proud to be Homo sapiens. A curious species with DNA compelling us to explore, even if doing so puts your own life at risk.” This tweet from 01/11/2014 is an opinion not a scientific statement. The curiosity we associate with the scientific age has occurred without corresponding changes to our biology. We can argue more convincingly that being curious is a cultural behaviour rather than falling back on rather tired notions of DNA and/or biology “compelling us to explore”.

68 Pierre Bourdieu (1988). Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press. Originally published in French 1984 by Les Editions de Minuit.

69 Huizinga, Johan (1949). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-element in Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. "Playing Man" or "Man the Player". Originally written in 1938, then later translated.

70 Berger, Peter & Luckmann, Thomas (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books. p66. (1991 print version). “As soon as one observes phenomena that are specifically human, one enters the realm of the social. Man's specific humanity and sociality are inextricably intertwined. Homo sapiens is always, and in the same measure, homo socious." (Berger and Luckmann, 1966:69)

71 Dissanayake, Ellen (1992). Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes from and Why. New York: The Free Press.

72 Calvin, William H. (2004). A Brief History Of The Mind: From Apes to Intellect and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. p190.

73 Goodall, Jane. (c2008). Toolmaking. Available: http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp-central-toolmakers. Last accessed 3rd Nov 2014. The Jane Goodall Institute began in1977 and the website seems to have been created around 2008. According to Goodall’sown research/website, “At the turn of the century, at least one or possibly closer to two million chimpanzees were present in 25 countries across West and Central Africa. Now, only four countries have significant populations of chimpanzees, and probably no more than 150,000 chimpanzees are left across all of Africa. Habitat loss, bushmeat hunting, and poaching for infants are the three major causes for thedecline of chimpanzees in the wild.” (my emphasis) It is crucial to understand thatthe decline is not the consequence of natural selection and/or natural processes, but artificial/human means.

74 Gazzaniga, Michael. (2008). ARE HUMAN BRAINS UNIQUE? . Available: http://edge.org/conversation/are-human-brains-unique. Last accessed 6th Nov 2014. Gazzaniga’s increment to this difference is one of ‘light years’ whereas Louis Leakey thinks this makes chimpanzees the same as humans. There is something almost anti-knowledge when we class a chimp “fishing” for termites with grass and human technology that has sent a rover to Mars where it can beam back pictures, as both ‘tools’. This is what I am mean by “clumping” and a theory of technology rooted in ToC/Expression can bring clarity to this area.

75 Bergson, Henri (1911). Creative Evolution. New York: Henry Holt and Company. p139. Translated by Arthur Mitchell from the 1907 book L'Évolution créatrice. Bergson writes, ‘If we rid ourselves of all pride, if, to define our species, we kept strictly to what the historic and prehistoric periods show us to be the constant characteristicof man and of intelligence, we should say not Homo sapiens, but Homo faber. In short,intelligence, considered in what seems to be its original feature, is the faculty of manufacturing artificial objects especially tools to make tools, and of indefinitely varying the manufacture.’ (139 :1911)

76 Elias, Hans. (1947). Homo Sapiens Versus Homo Mechanicus. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 70 (2), p177-189. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08856559.1947.10533404#.VFq-j2d-PFw

Taylor and Francis Group, Routledge. Published online: 31 Aug 2012. Last accessed 6th Nov 2014.

77 Gingras, Yves. (2005). Éloge de l'homo techno-logicus. Saint-Laurent, Québec: Les Editions Fides. An earlier reference to this term is from Ong, Walter J. (2002). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge. First published in 1982by Methuen & Co. Ltd. The transition of oral to literary and technological is an important transition within the history of cultural expression.

78 Peuch, Michel. (2008). Homo sapiens technologicus. Philosophie de la technologie contemporaine, philosophie de la sagesse contemporaine, Paris: Le Pommier.

79 Edited by Luppicini, Rocci (2014). Evolving Issues Surrounding Technoethics and Society in the Digital Age. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, U.S. p5. Luppicini writes, "In other words, technical human beings (homo technicus) generate a technological culture. In this section 'LONG LIVE HOMO TECHNICUS!' the author gives several reasons why he uses Homo Technicus over Homo faber, Homo technologicus, and Homo sapiens technologicus.

80 Krotoski, Aleks. (2010). Homo Interneticus?. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r3qhg. Last accessed 5th Nov 2014. First broadcast on BBC Two, Scotland 19:15, 20/02/2010. This term was previously used in 2004 by Michael H. Goldhaber who also refers to Homo oralis, Homo literalis, and Homo typographicus http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1155/1075. Last accessed 6th Nov 2014. “A full exploration of what is distinctive about the mentality of H. interneticus would have to take up the full panoply of Internet experiences including games, porn, open source programming, chat rooms, instant messaging and music file sharing. Further, all this would have to be situated not only with respect to primary oral, manuscript and print cultures but also with respect to mentalities that went along with the earlier "electric" media of movies,radio, sound recordings and television.” ‘The mentality of Homo interneticus: Some Ongian postulates’ is the title of Goldhaber’s abstract, and the Ong is Walter J.Ong who is attributed with coining the term Homo technologicus. As an interesting connection, Walter J. Ong's doctoral supervisor was Marshall McLuhan.

81 The technoosphere has the same syllables as biosphere although initially it doeslook a longer word. In my research I have since become aware of the term ‘technosphere’. I’m trying to convey the ebb and flow of meaning and time through the network of technology, and I think the technoosphere is more effective at achieving that.

82 As well as Wade Davis’ ethnosphere, there is Manahan’s anthrosphere, Milsum’s sociosphere, Thomas’ econosphere, to which we can add the infosphere, artsphere, humanosphere, blogosphere, politosphere and the virtual sphere as other examples. I’ve already referred to the twittersphere and Vernadsky/Teilhard’s noosphere and there is scope, and a need to frame the technoosphere along with the most appropriate of these terms within a global human cultural system in tandem with thenatural biosphere.

83 Dubos, Rene. (1990). The World of Rene Dubos: A Collection from His Writings. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc. p306. Across cultures, laws come and go but to think of an 11th commandment is perhaps the greatest coming of age idea in the history of humankind. It would have to be something that could transcend cultures, resonating across time and place and be worthy of a human commandment, our first one. 84 Moon, Ban-Ki. (2014). "There is no plan B, because there is no Planet B.". Available: https://twitter.com/ClimateGroup/status/514481900790890497. Last accessed 6th Nov 2014.

85 Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H. (2008). The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment. Washington: Island Press. p196.

86 Boyden, Stephen. (2004). The Biology of Civilisation: Understanding Human Culture as a Force in Nature. Sydney: UNSW Press. xi.

87 Klein, Richard G. and Edgar, Blake (2002). The Dawn of Human Culture. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. p8.

88 Wilson, Edward.O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. London: Little, Brown and Company. p310.

89 Core and Extended Core Writing Team. (2014). Climate Change 2014 - IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report. Available: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf. p10. Last accessed 6th Nov 2014.

90 Radford,Tim . (2004). Freaks of nature. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/apr/28/environment.environment. Last accessed 6th Nov 2014. I have searched out the original Royal Society B paper on a number of occasions but I can’t seem to find the dates/data for it right now.

91 92 Galloway, George. I heard Scottish politician George Galloway say this years agoand it resonated then, and does still.

93 Obama, Barack. (2012). 'You are the change'. Available: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/07/nation/la-na-convention-20120907. Last accessed 7th Nov 2014.

94 Berger, Peter L. (1963). Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. London: Penguin Books. p141.