BIG06.PERSONAS CULTURIS: NAMING MATTERS

BIG06.PERSONAS CULTURIS: NAMING MATTERS

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

Should ‘personas culturis’ be our species name?

BIG outline: At present we have a species name homo sapiens sapiens originating from a taxononomic/classification system rooted in biology and evolutionary science. We need a species names that captures accurately and fully all the ways there are of being human and the new species name personas culturis (persons/people of culture) does that. I am not the first person to highlight such an apparent departure from traditional thinking on our species. Edward O.Wilson, (co)author of three attempts to Darwinise culture, writes that “Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the force that made us.” We're the first truly free species, the first truly expressive species, truly cultural species and we need a species name that captures, crystalises and conveys who we are, in a way that the present species name does not. Naming matters. In 1930 we named Pluto a planet, and in the light of new evidence changed it to dwarf planet in 2006. If we can change how a planet is named, then we can change how a single species is named too. Julian Huxley who wrote The Modern Synthesis in 1942, part of uniting Darwin's evolutionary theory and Mendelian genetics wrote in 1957 that Man could “be placed in a new major grade, which might be called Psychozoa.” What am I proposing here is more sophisticated, merited and reflective of how we name all humans beings, and all the ways there are of being human. There are 100s of ways of describing being human which homo sapiens sapiens does not. There are books on The Believing Primate, The Dominant Animal, the Cultural Animal, The Co-operative Species, the musical species, The God Species, The Accidental Species, even Edward O. Wilson's The Poetic Species. Wilson has also referred to humans as 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.” To these we can add homo curiosum, homo academicus, homo ludens, homo aestheticus, homo technologicus and Berger & Luckmann's homo socious. There are 100s more and personas culturis can accommodate all of these ways of being human, as well as future-proofing our species for any future change. We wouldn't need to rename our species homo sapiens sapiens sapiens as William Calvin has written. Personas Culturis updates, acknowledges and frames fully who we are as a species, borne from the very cultural process that enables us to have a recording, classification system.

BIG outcome: We can develop a 'tree of expression' (or network of expression) from the current classification system. Humans are different but not detached from the natural world, and importantly Personas Culturis will be an off-shoot from the current tree of life but the connection to the natural world will be there for all to see. The different ways of being human are tellingly cultural differences, not biological and only a cultural tree of life(style) can map this out. For the first time we can develop a fuller taxonomic web of Personas Culturis with 100s of kinds of being human displayed, connected, and conveying who we are as a species. The outcome of this BIG is an incredibly impressive ‘tree of expression’ (network of expression) and this represents a deeper truth than the currently inadequate homo sapiens sapiens, and a lasting reflection of our maturing knowledge.