Mark N Cowan - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
I have been working on the general theory of culture since 1996. After reading Berger & Luckmann's 1966 The Social Construction of Reality, towards the end of that book they suggest the possibility of a sociological psychology. My MA Thesis 'A Sociology of Human Agency: Understanding Action' developed these ideas still further.
I took a year off to work on PhD submissions and in 1998 I was accepted at the School of Education, Manchester University to study 'The Psychology of Learning and Misconceptions in Science' but they couldn't offer me any funding. I was fortunate enough to secure an ESRC PhD studentship at Leicester University to study Economic and Social History in 1998.
What was emerging was a connecting and unifying of the social sciences, arts and humanities along a social epistemological spectrum. Sociological Psychology was able to bridge into the natural sciences and sophisticate evolutionary theory, and another discipline I was developing, Theoretical Sociophysics, was extremely productive in bridging into the physical sciences.
I drifted from my original PhD as the quest(ion) and I have been working on this freelance if you will, since 2001. I located the underlying mechanism for culture in 2007, and this leads to laws and even measurement. Furthermore, it leads to a unity of knowledge allowing for deeper insight into how the social, natural and physical sciences work and ultimately how time works as a very specific interconnection of placetime, meantime and spacetime.
This is way, way beyond a PhD now. It connects and unifies the social sciences, arts and humanities and bridges into the physical and natural sciences. It can offer insights into the working of the natural and physical worlds that the natural and physical sciences are not able to. No-one (certainly not me) sets out to work on something so grand. I was motivated initially to see what a Sociological Psychology would/could look like and then I just kept developing it from there and the project got bigger and bigger to where I am today.
The process of order and change (including revolution upon revolution) is NOT cultural evolution, it is a process of cultural expression. When we are trying to reduce an entire dimension of activity, in this case culture down to a single term we have to be correct, and evolution as that term, is not the truth, but expression is. Expression has laws, mechanism and measurement and my challenge now is to work on the presentation so that it impresses academics and laypeople, social, natural and physical scientists in ways they never thought possible.
Thank you for your time.
Address: Glasgow, Glasgow City, United Kingdom
less
Uploads
Papers by Mark N Cowan
Discussion Paper, 2024
Charles Darwin opened the door to the natural world with the theory of evolution in his 1859 book... more Charles Darwin opened the door to the natural world with the theory of evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species. This was 172 years after Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica opened to the door to the physical world. In the 165 years since Darwin’s seminal book and there is still no accepted scientific theory of the culture and mind that would connect and unify the social sciences, arts and humanities. Super theory is not just that theory opening the door to the social world in the same way Newton & Darwin did for their domains it has a range of additional connections and bridges into the natural and physical worlds enriching those domains of knowledge to the extent it can be argued (and that is the focus of these 1,000 words) it could be the only possible five Nobel Prize theory ever advanced. This is approaching the Nobel Prizes as awards for benefitting humankind.
Discussion Paper, 2024
God is the only being who, in order to reign, doesn't even need to exist." Charles Baudelaire, Fr... more God is the only being who, in order to reign, doesn't even need to exist." Charles Baudelaire, French Poet
There are evolutionary theorists who cannot accept culture's difference to nature and to evolutionary theory because they think this "exceptionalism" opens the door to God. In this discussion paper I deal with 3 arguments against God. I refute them showing the plausibility of God within the wider point of being able to believe in culture as a different system to nature and evolutionary theory, and you can believe that without having to believe in God.
There is a lasting hang up out there from some renowned evolutionary theorists that to accept culture is different necesaarily opens the door to God. That is not the case. That is their hang up. Don't let it be yours.
N/A, 2022
This is the first of a series of papers and add-ons to this underlining evolutionary theory has n... more This is the first of a series of papers and add-ons to this underlining evolutionary theory has never generated an accepted theory of culture, mind and humankind despite 10+ schools of thought since 1859. I'll explain why evolutionary theory can never explain the social sciences to the required standard, and also show that a Newtonising of the social sciences is possible and urgently required if our species is to remedy problems of our, now evolutions, creation.
I'll write this over time including responses to previous parts of this chain paper, so if you have any comments, contridictions, and/or critical insights, send them on and I'll include them as well as my reply.
Humans record their experience around them in trillions of artefacts "like" nature records evolut... more Humans record their experience around them in trillions of artefacts "like" nature records evolutionary outcome in DNA. This different recording mechanism isn't just a new kind of memory, it is a new kind of time: placetime. Humans experience placetime in the now of meantime, which also acts and interacts with spacetime.
This level of understanding is only available if you engage critical thinking on the dogma that culture has to be an evolutionary process. It is possible to realise a scientifically accepted theory of culture, mechanism, process and measurement, its just that it can't from a theory of cultural evolution, but it is possible from understanding the process of cultural expression.
In the history of life on earth spanning billions of years, there has only been one species that ... more In the history of life on earth spanning billions of years, there has only been one species that has turned space into place, into meaning. That species is us: humankind. Just one. There are a number of reasons why I can state that with confidence, here they are.
![Research paper thumbnail of Newton, Darwin, [insert name/-ism here] - Time for a Theory of Culture](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/60457744/thumbnails/1.jpg)
](This year is 160 years after Darwin's On the Origin of Species and there is still no accepted the... more This year is 160 years after Darwin's On the Origin of Species and there is still no accepted theory of culture. The belief that culture can be explained to the required standard by evolutionary theory is approaching "peak ignorance", and it is time for the social sciences to realise this connecting and unifying theory of the social sciences, arts and humanities. This paper outlines the process of culture expression and the outcomes that would come from an accepted theory of culture. With the destructive effect humankind has on nature such a theory is needed more than ever. It is the contention of the author that culture can be Newtonised, but not Darwinised.
It is time for social science, to realise the general theory of culture from which we can bridge ... more It is time for social science, to realise the general theory of culture from which we can bridge into the natural and physical sciences towards a deeper awareness of how knowledge is connected and how we can understand time like never before. These insights are only amenable to/fromN the social sciences.
the BIG institute. 11 TED-style lectures to change the world These BIGs transform human knowledg... more the BIG institute. 11 TED-style lectures to change the world
These BIGs transform human knowledge. Launching during "Projects of Earth" time, cracking culture helps/saves us and the natural world.
August 2017
‘Man, in fact, has embarked on a wholly new phase of evolution, the psycho-social phase, in which... more ‘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 evolution and study the mechanisms by which it operates.’ – Huxley and Kettlewell, Charles Darwin and his World
This new kind of evolution is cultural expression.
Drafts by Mark N Cowan
Academia.edu, 2022
There was a time when "God did it" was enough. Now "Evolution did it" is enough for many, but the... more There was a time when "God did it" was enough. Now "Evolution did it" is enough for many, but there is no accepted scientific theory of culture in 2022 and that is a problem for those critical of thought. Evolution is the settled theory of how we understand the parts of the natural world but has always struggled to explain the social sciences, arts and humanities. Scientifically there has to be a theory of how culture works and every year we don't have such a theory science is all the poorer. Discovering this theory is the single biggest question for science presently in the future until this is realised. John Maynard Smith (famous evolutionary biologist) called culture "the second hereditary system" and causally it has as much if not more influence of why humans are the way they are than evolution and biological factors. Imagine not having a theory for 50+% why we think the way we do, act the way we do, and shape the world the way we do. It is the biggest question for all of science and no other question is even close. The good news is that once we discover this theory it unlocks more levels of awareness about the natural and physical worlds and elevates human knowledge to wisdom level with super theory.
N/A, 2021
Humankind is different to all other species. Culture is different in dimension to nature and this... more Humankind is different to all other species. Culture is different in dimension to nature and this, in part, is why evolutionary theory continues to struggles with culture. Climate change, in large part is culture in action and in order to fully address climate change we need an accepted scientific theory of culture. More than that, we need a species passage of rites moment of maturity where an eleventh commandment to re-connect and respect nature can meet the urgency of the moment with a meaningful response. Humans are different but not detached from the natural world and it's about time science and wider human knowledge realised this.
Or not.
This weekend's main feature on the cover of New Scientist magazine said 'What animals are really ... more This weekend's main feature on the cover of New Scientist magazine said 'What animals are really thinking. Why human-like intelligence is far more common than we thought.' This is an expression of sameness between humankind and animalkind. 'The Leader' on p.5 goes further, "Clearly, humans aren't alone in possessing a flexible, problem-solving sort of brain-or indeed attributes that build on that, such as culture (see page 15)" More sameness. Not just in intelligence but culture too. On the way to p.15 however p.12 says "Humans have triggered a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. Aliens could do the same." Aliens could do the same, but not animals. If you accept that geology is nature's deepest aggregate it is worth reflecting on what is being asserted here by geology, that a single species' impact on the planet is so great that it has triggered a geological epoch. This is the most profound difference, coming from geology, not biology it is worth noting. On p.15 Andrew Whiten being quizzed by Michael Le Page says "…culture is everywhere" not just among apes, whales and chimpanzees, but insects as well. More sameness. Here is the issue, and it should be the most pressing scientific questions in the world, and of our time right now, but they are not even being asked despite their urgency. Why is there no settled theory of culture from the evolutionary perspective? Climate change is both: (a) a consequence of human-level intelligence in action, and (b) culture grinding on nature. To equivocate humankind with animalkind is to diminish the difference between culture and nature, and the current pressure that culture is putting on nature. While this remains the case, there is a climate change dilution in fuller awareness of what is going on right now, and into the future. If humankind and animalkind are so the same in terms of intelligence, mind, and culture and culture is an evolutionary process then all things that humans do are natural. That is a vulgar read on the world out there, and even more unforgiving that it comes from science.
N/A, 2020
The biggest shortcoming in science since 1859 is the failure to generate an accepted theory of cu... more The biggest shortcoming in science since 1859 is the failure to generate an accepted theory of culture, the very system from which science is part. There isn't a universally accepted definition of culture. This paper can get us on the road to that, and in part it is about understanding culture as a behavioural dimension beyond the explanatory capacity of evolutionary theory. Science can work culture out, but evolutionary theory cannot.
Big History is an impressive summary of human knowledge. However, science is more than the narrat... more Big History is an impressive summary of human knowledge. However, science is more than the narrative of the human knowledge of the universe, it demands meta-narrative. I'll do 1,000 words on science soon and the fundamental question that drives science "What is the alternative?" but for this essay I'll discuss kinds of change, and looking at genes V genre, generation and the general. So, while Big History has merits in telling the story it is not the same as scientific domains trying to arrive at laws. What I'm going to argue is that across the physical, natural and social sciences they have their own dimension and within those dimensions the systems of order and change are specific to each one. Newton didn't discover the theory of evolution because species change and the organic world weren't his domain. Darwin, or any adherent since has not been able to explain culture's complexity. In short: Physical science-inflation & expansion Natural science-evolution Social science-expression Complex systems at this level of enquiry require a memory, or complexity (more sophisticated change) cannot platform from this. The only exception to this is the initial system, the physical one. As the universe inflates then expands the structure of matter changes (not evolves) from inflation and through expansion. The structure of matter at the point of the big bang, to millions of years and later billions of years, becomes increasingly complex yielding a myriad of cosmic conditions. Only once galaxies across the universe arrive at a certain condition then we see the emergence of the next domain: nature, or the organic world we associate with life. On our planet nature emerges and becomes a fuller dimension of activity and diversity. Species change is dependent on many moving parts but requires a memory and in the highly non-reactive biochemistry of DNA/genes this kind of memory (a recording/loading mechanism) the process of evolutionary change unfolds. At some point however a new dimension emerges from the evolutionary process. That is the human social of culture and a new kind of order & change that evolution cannot explain: expression. To understand cultural expression, you do not research genes, or read the intellectual attempts over the last 16 decades at trying to Darwinise culture without the success of achieving an accepted theory. You have to try and understand the merits and mechanism of culture itself. As Richard Lewontin (clever, now-retired evolutionary biologist) said, you can't just take a theory from one domain and slap it on another. That may sustain a career, or a cultural bandwagon or movement lasting generations but it's not how we get to the truth. As a good way into understanding culture you need think about genre, generation and what we seem as our general (or generic/common). As humans emerge from the evolutionary process it is one level of awareness to recognise that with minds, they can express themselves into the external world. It is a deeper level of awareness that humans cannot not express themselves. This means the human
Culture is a dimension different but not detached from the natural world. There has never been an... more Culture is a dimension different but not detached from the natural world. There has never been an accepted theory of culture from the evolutionary perspective, and it is the contention of the author, it never will. Science can locate the underlying mechanisms of culture and connect and unify the social sciences, arts and humanities. The process we need to understanding is Cultural EXpression not Cultural Evolution and over a series of essays 'Culture in 1000 words' the case will be laid out how to understand culture as the process powering humankind in the world around us, and not the evolutionary process. Keep in mind, evolution is not another term for all change. It is a theory with explanatory power over change in nature which continues to struggle with change in/of culture. These essays outline how culture can be understood in a different way.
Dear Charles Darwin 2020 Jan, 2020
This is the first of monthly letters sent to Charles Darwin on the lack of progress in evolutiona... more This is the first of monthly letters sent to Charles Darwin on the lack of progress in evolutionary theory cracking culture since 1859. This letter outlines some of those issues, as well as what we'd need to think about towards a genuine, scientific, accepted theory of culture. The next monthly letter will deal with Darwin's own writing on the difference between nature and culture.
A connected, unified theory of the social sciences, arts and humanities would have to bridge into... more A connected, unified theory of the social sciences, arts and humanities would have to bridge into the natural and physical sciences to be sure of the limits of the social. Theoretical sociophysics is that bridging discipline into the physical sciences. There are a range of insights concerning time, information and reality that the physical sciences cannot fully grasp without the range and reach of what theoretical sociophysics brings to the table. Einstein may well have illuminated spacetime, but he was not aware of the action and interaction of placetime and meantime. Theoretical sociophysics, however, it.
May 2016 update I have spent over 20,000 hours on this and will continue to until such times as I... more May 2016 update I have spent over 20,000 hours on this and will continue to until such times as I see it " over the line " in completion.
1. We've got a rounded understanding of the physical world, starting from the time Newton 'Newtonised' the physical sciences, albeit 'natural philosophy' at the time.
2. Darwin 'Newtonised' (not Darwinised) the natural/biological sciences, and despite 10+ schools of thought that have tried to Darwinise culture they have all failed to generate an accepted theory of culture. This is a lasting, and rather inconvenient fact for the biological/ natural sciences and science generally.
3. The ideas within this essay (which still require refinement and adjustment) are the basis and exhibit key fundamentals of the process of 'culture expression' (not cultural evolution) and such a body of work will 'Newtonise' the social sciences, arts and humanities along a social epistemological spectrum. Never forget, when we talk about the social sciences we are talking about the " human sciences ". This is an entire dimension of knowledge devoted to understanding a single species: humankind. I'm trying to write a book for 2017 that pulls my body of work together. It's a solo project beyond the influence of a number of key writers and thinkers I have read over, listened to and seen over time. The current university system is not setup to develop such a broad theory. Universities are full of experts, and subject specialists and while there is often talk about multidisciplinary engagement this exists on specific projects and certainly nothing on the scale of connecting and unifying the social sciences, arts and humanities. I've been working on this, as I said, for over 20,000 hours and it remains incomplete. No university would ever fund such a potentially forlorn venture. Having said that I have had some success, enough success at the beginning of this quest(ion). My MA thesis 'A Sociology of Human Agency: Understanding Action' looked at the possibility of connecting sociology and psychology. I knew that something broader would have to include economics and I was fortunate enough to secure funding for a PhD studentship in economic and social history. Over the course of my studies the idea of creating a general theory of culture took more and more of my time and ever since I have been working in jobs to pay bills while I work on this big, big theory. I think that's it for now.
On the economic front 'Developmentalism' has become 'social capitalism' with a range of capitalisms highlighted, all systems of accumulation and allocation. Free market capitalism is NOT an analogue to what goes on in nature, and in a very real and profound sense it cannot be thought of as a 'natural' system. Nature is a system of sustainability, not surplus. Capitalisms remain very human, and very artificial systems and we need to take control over the control it gives us. For all the amazing things we can associate with science it hasn't provided an acceptable response to the consequences of capitalisms effects on the social and natural worlds. That is a lasting failing of science, and many areas of knowledge. The social sciences are culpable in this as well. A general theory of culture does many, many things no less than the development of a theory of knowledge, with the possibility of The Berger Table, which is a periodic-like table where all subjects matters can be positioned within a table where all subjects and disciplines have their place. This is something beyond physics and the natural sciences, but something the social sciences have the potential to generate. I can say that because this is the work that I do, and I am very much a social scientist although I have had to branch into many neighbouring fields across the physical and natural sciences. I'll leave it there for now, The paper I have uploaded is pretty good, but not perfect. Hopefully I'm getting closer.
Discussion Paper, 2024
Charles Darwin opened the door to the natural world with the theory of evolution in his 1859 book... more Charles Darwin opened the door to the natural world with the theory of evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species. This was 172 years after Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica opened to the door to the physical world. In the 165 years since Darwin’s seminal book and there is still no accepted scientific theory of the culture and mind that would connect and unify the social sciences, arts and humanities. Super theory is not just that theory opening the door to the social world in the same way Newton & Darwin did for their domains it has a range of additional connections and bridges into the natural and physical worlds enriching those domains of knowledge to the extent it can be argued (and that is the focus of these 1,000 words) it could be the only possible five Nobel Prize theory ever advanced. This is approaching the Nobel Prizes as awards for benefitting humankind.
Discussion Paper, 2024
God is the only being who, in order to reign, doesn't even need to exist." Charles Baudelaire, Fr... more God is the only being who, in order to reign, doesn't even need to exist." Charles Baudelaire, French Poet
There are evolutionary theorists who cannot accept culture's difference to nature and to evolutionary theory because they think this "exceptionalism" opens the door to God. In this discussion paper I deal with 3 arguments against God. I refute them showing the plausibility of God within the wider point of being able to believe in culture as a different system to nature and evolutionary theory, and you can believe that without having to believe in God.
There is a lasting hang up out there from some renowned evolutionary theorists that to accept culture is different necesaarily opens the door to God. That is not the case. That is their hang up. Don't let it be yours.
N/A, 2022
This is the first of a series of papers and add-ons to this underlining evolutionary theory has n... more This is the first of a series of papers and add-ons to this underlining evolutionary theory has never generated an accepted theory of culture, mind and humankind despite 10+ schools of thought since 1859. I'll explain why evolutionary theory can never explain the social sciences to the required standard, and also show that a Newtonising of the social sciences is possible and urgently required if our species is to remedy problems of our, now evolutions, creation.
I'll write this over time including responses to previous parts of this chain paper, so if you have any comments, contridictions, and/or critical insights, send them on and I'll include them as well as my reply.
Humans record their experience around them in trillions of artefacts "like" nature records evolut... more Humans record their experience around them in trillions of artefacts "like" nature records evolutionary outcome in DNA. This different recording mechanism isn't just a new kind of memory, it is a new kind of time: placetime. Humans experience placetime in the now of meantime, which also acts and interacts with spacetime.
This level of understanding is only available if you engage critical thinking on the dogma that culture has to be an evolutionary process. It is possible to realise a scientifically accepted theory of culture, mechanism, process and measurement, its just that it can't from a theory of cultural evolution, but it is possible from understanding the process of cultural expression.
In the history of life on earth spanning billions of years, there has only been one species that ... more In the history of life on earth spanning billions of years, there has only been one species that has turned space into place, into meaning. That species is us: humankind. Just one. There are a number of reasons why I can state that with confidence, here they are.
This year is 160 years after Darwin's On the Origin of Species and there is still no accepted the... more This year is 160 years after Darwin's On the Origin of Species and there is still no accepted theory of culture. The belief that culture can be explained to the required standard by evolutionary theory is approaching "peak ignorance", and it is time for the social sciences to realise this connecting and unifying theory of the social sciences, arts and humanities. This paper outlines the process of culture expression and the outcomes that would come from an accepted theory of culture. With the destructive effect humankind has on nature such a theory is needed more than ever. It is the contention of the author that culture can be Newtonised, but not Darwinised.
It is time for social science, to realise the general theory of culture from which we can bridge ... more It is time for social science, to realise the general theory of culture from which we can bridge into the natural and physical sciences towards a deeper awareness of how knowledge is connected and how we can understand time like never before. These insights are only amenable to/fromN the social sciences.
the BIG institute. 11 TED-style lectures to change the world These BIGs transform human knowledg... more the BIG institute. 11 TED-style lectures to change the world
These BIGs transform human knowledge. Launching during "Projects of Earth" time, cracking culture helps/saves us and the natural world.
August 2017
‘Man, in fact, has embarked on a wholly new phase of evolution, the psycho-social phase, in which... more ‘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 evolution and study the mechanisms by which it operates.’ – Huxley and Kettlewell, Charles Darwin and his World
This new kind of evolution is cultural expression.
Academia.edu, 2022
There was a time when "God did it" was enough. Now "Evolution did it" is enough for many, but the... more There was a time when "God did it" was enough. Now "Evolution did it" is enough for many, but there is no accepted scientific theory of culture in 2022 and that is a problem for those critical of thought. Evolution is the settled theory of how we understand the parts of the natural world but has always struggled to explain the social sciences, arts and humanities. Scientifically there has to be a theory of how culture works and every year we don't have such a theory science is all the poorer. Discovering this theory is the single biggest question for science presently in the future until this is realised. John Maynard Smith (famous evolutionary biologist) called culture "the second hereditary system" and causally it has as much if not more influence of why humans are the way they are than evolution and biological factors. Imagine not having a theory for 50+% why we think the way we do, act the way we do, and shape the world the way we do. It is the biggest question for all of science and no other question is even close. The good news is that once we discover this theory it unlocks more levels of awareness about the natural and physical worlds and elevates human knowledge to wisdom level with super theory.
N/A, 2021
Humankind is different to all other species. Culture is different in dimension to nature and this... more Humankind is different to all other species. Culture is different in dimension to nature and this, in part, is why evolutionary theory continues to struggles with culture. Climate change, in large part is culture in action and in order to fully address climate change we need an accepted scientific theory of culture. More than that, we need a species passage of rites moment of maturity where an eleventh commandment to re-connect and respect nature can meet the urgency of the moment with a meaningful response. Humans are different but not detached from the natural world and it's about time science and wider human knowledge realised this.
Or not.
This weekend's main feature on the cover of New Scientist magazine said 'What animals are really ... more This weekend's main feature on the cover of New Scientist magazine said 'What animals are really thinking. Why human-like intelligence is far more common than we thought.' This is an expression of sameness between humankind and animalkind. 'The Leader' on p.5 goes further, "Clearly, humans aren't alone in possessing a flexible, problem-solving sort of brain-or indeed attributes that build on that, such as culture (see page 15)" More sameness. Not just in intelligence but culture too. On the way to p.15 however p.12 says "Humans have triggered a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. Aliens could do the same." Aliens could do the same, but not animals. If you accept that geology is nature's deepest aggregate it is worth reflecting on what is being asserted here by geology, that a single species' impact on the planet is so great that it has triggered a geological epoch. This is the most profound difference, coming from geology, not biology it is worth noting. On p.15 Andrew Whiten being quizzed by Michael Le Page says "…culture is everywhere" not just among apes, whales and chimpanzees, but insects as well. More sameness. Here is the issue, and it should be the most pressing scientific questions in the world, and of our time right now, but they are not even being asked despite their urgency. Why is there no settled theory of culture from the evolutionary perspective? Climate change is both: (a) a consequence of human-level intelligence in action, and (b) culture grinding on nature. To equivocate humankind with animalkind is to diminish the difference between culture and nature, and the current pressure that culture is putting on nature. While this remains the case, there is a climate change dilution in fuller awareness of what is going on right now, and into the future. If humankind and animalkind are so the same in terms of intelligence, mind, and culture and culture is an evolutionary process then all things that humans do are natural. That is a vulgar read on the world out there, and even more unforgiving that it comes from science.
N/A, 2020
The biggest shortcoming in science since 1859 is the failure to generate an accepted theory of cu... more The biggest shortcoming in science since 1859 is the failure to generate an accepted theory of culture, the very system from which science is part. There isn't a universally accepted definition of culture. This paper can get us on the road to that, and in part it is about understanding culture as a behavioural dimension beyond the explanatory capacity of evolutionary theory. Science can work culture out, but evolutionary theory cannot.
Big History is an impressive summary of human knowledge. However, science is more than the narrat... more Big History is an impressive summary of human knowledge. However, science is more than the narrative of the human knowledge of the universe, it demands meta-narrative. I'll do 1,000 words on science soon and the fundamental question that drives science "What is the alternative?" but for this essay I'll discuss kinds of change, and looking at genes V genre, generation and the general. So, while Big History has merits in telling the story it is not the same as scientific domains trying to arrive at laws. What I'm going to argue is that across the physical, natural and social sciences they have their own dimension and within those dimensions the systems of order and change are specific to each one. Newton didn't discover the theory of evolution because species change and the organic world weren't his domain. Darwin, or any adherent since has not been able to explain culture's complexity. In short: Physical science-inflation & expansion Natural science-evolution Social science-expression Complex systems at this level of enquiry require a memory, or complexity (more sophisticated change) cannot platform from this. The only exception to this is the initial system, the physical one. As the universe inflates then expands the structure of matter changes (not evolves) from inflation and through expansion. The structure of matter at the point of the big bang, to millions of years and later billions of years, becomes increasingly complex yielding a myriad of cosmic conditions. Only once galaxies across the universe arrive at a certain condition then we see the emergence of the next domain: nature, or the organic world we associate with life. On our planet nature emerges and becomes a fuller dimension of activity and diversity. Species change is dependent on many moving parts but requires a memory and in the highly non-reactive biochemistry of DNA/genes this kind of memory (a recording/loading mechanism) the process of evolutionary change unfolds. At some point however a new dimension emerges from the evolutionary process. That is the human social of culture and a new kind of order & change that evolution cannot explain: expression. To understand cultural expression, you do not research genes, or read the intellectual attempts over the last 16 decades at trying to Darwinise culture without the success of achieving an accepted theory. You have to try and understand the merits and mechanism of culture itself. As Richard Lewontin (clever, now-retired evolutionary biologist) said, you can't just take a theory from one domain and slap it on another. That may sustain a career, or a cultural bandwagon or movement lasting generations but it's not how we get to the truth. As a good way into understanding culture you need think about genre, generation and what we seem as our general (or generic/common). As humans emerge from the evolutionary process it is one level of awareness to recognise that with minds, they can express themselves into the external world. It is a deeper level of awareness that humans cannot not express themselves. This means the human
Culture is a dimension different but not detached from the natural world. There has never been an... more Culture is a dimension different but not detached from the natural world. There has never been an accepted theory of culture from the evolutionary perspective, and it is the contention of the author, it never will. Science can locate the underlying mechanisms of culture and connect and unify the social sciences, arts and humanities. The process we need to understanding is Cultural EXpression not Cultural Evolution and over a series of essays 'Culture in 1000 words' the case will be laid out how to understand culture as the process powering humankind in the world around us, and not the evolutionary process. Keep in mind, evolution is not another term for all change. It is a theory with explanatory power over change in nature which continues to struggle with change in/of culture. These essays outline how culture can be understood in a different way.
Dear Charles Darwin 2020 Jan, 2020
This is the first of monthly letters sent to Charles Darwin on the lack of progress in evolutiona... more This is the first of monthly letters sent to Charles Darwin on the lack of progress in evolutionary theory cracking culture since 1859. This letter outlines some of those issues, as well as what we'd need to think about towards a genuine, scientific, accepted theory of culture. The next monthly letter will deal with Darwin's own writing on the difference between nature and culture.
A connected, unified theory of the social sciences, arts and humanities would have to bridge into... more A connected, unified theory of the social sciences, arts and humanities would have to bridge into the natural and physical sciences to be sure of the limits of the social. Theoretical sociophysics is that bridging discipline into the physical sciences. There are a range of insights concerning time, information and reality that the physical sciences cannot fully grasp without the range and reach of what theoretical sociophysics brings to the table. Einstein may well have illuminated spacetime, but he was not aware of the action and interaction of placetime and meantime. Theoretical sociophysics, however, it.
May 2016 update I have spent over 20,000 hours on this and will continue to until such times as I... more May 2016 update I have spent over 20,000 hours on this and will continue to until such times as I see it " over the line " in completion.
1. We've got a rounded understanding of the physical world, starting from the time Newton 'Newtonised' the physical sciences, albeit 'natural philosophy' at the time.
2. Darwin 'Newtonised' (not Darwinised) the natural/biological sciences, and despite 10+ schools of thought that have tried to Darwinise culture they have all failed to generate an accepted theory of culture. This is a lasting, and rather inconvenient fact for the biological/ natural sciences and science generally.
3. The ideas within this essay (which still require refinement and adjustment) are the basis and exhibit key fundamentals of the process of 'culture expression' (not cultural evolution) and such a body of work will 'Newtonise' the social sciences, arts and humanities along a social epistemological spectrum. Never forget, when we talk about the social sciences we are talking about the " human sciences ". This is an entire dimension of knowledge devoted to understanding a single species: humankind. I'm trying to write a book for 2017 that pulls my body of work together. It's a solo project beyond the influence of a number of key writers and thinkers I have read over, listened to and seen over time. The current university system is not setup to develop such a broad theory. Universities are full of experts, and subject specialists and while there is often talk about multidisciplinary engagement this exists on specific projects and certainly nothing on the scale of connecting and unifying the social sciences, arts and humanities. I've been working on this, as I said, for over 20,000 hours and it remains incomplete. No university would ever fund such a potentially forlorn venture. Having said that I have had some success, enough success at the beginning of this quest(ion). My MA thesis 'A Sociology of Human Agency: Understanding Action' looked at the possibility of connecting sociology and psychology. I knew that something broader would have to include economics and I was fortunate enough to secure funding for a PhD studentship in economic and social history. Over the course of my studies the idea of creating a general theory of culture took more and more of my time and ever since I have been working in jobs to pay bills while I work on this big, big theory. I think that's it for now.
On the economic front 'Developmentalism' has become 'social capitalism' with a range of capitalisms highlighted, all systems of accumulation and allocation. Free market capitalism is NOT an analogue to what goes on in nature, and in a very real and profound sense it cannot be thought of as a 'natural' system. Nature is a system of sustainability, not surplus. Capitalisms remain very human, and very artificial systems and we need to take control over the control it gives us. For all the amazing things we can associate with science it hasn't provided an acceptable response to the consequences of capitalisms effects on the social and natural worlds. That is a lasting failing of science, and many areas of knowledge. The social sciences are culpable in this as well. A general theory of culture does many, many things no less than the development of a theory of knowledge, with the possibility of The Berger Table, which is a periodic-like table where all subjects matters can be positioned within a table where all subjects and disciplines have their place. This is something beyond physics and the natural sciences, but something the social sciences have the potential to generate. I can say that because this is the work that I do, and I am very much a social scientist although I have had to branch into many neighbouring fields across the physical and natural sciences. I'll leave it there for now, The paper I have uploaded is pretty good, but not perfect. Hopefully I'm getting closer.