page 4
~ The Study of Threes ~
http://threesology.org
Visitors as of 1st Feb 2020
| Preface page 1 | Preface page 2 | Preface page 3 |
| Preface page 1b | Preface page 2b | Preface page 3b |
| Preface page 1 | Preface page 2 | Preface page 3 |
| Preface page 1b | Preface page 2b | Preface page 3b |
| ANC Prologue Page 1 |
ANC Prologue Page 2 |
ANC Prologue Page 3 |
| ANC Prologue Page 1b |
ANC Prologue Page 2b |
ANC Prologue Page 3b |
| Communism and Societal Collapse |
| ANC Epilogue Page 1 |
ANC Epilogue Page 2 |
ANC Epilogue Page 3 |
Hence, my deconstructive approach, my demolition approach, my re-evaluation of Communism; whether it be analogically viewed in an educational 1st-day-of-school setting, a military bootcamp or advanced training prior to a duty station persepctive, as a business orientation meeting, romantic relationship tit-for-tat exploration of interests, marriage role arrangement, sports club practices, criminal enterprise layout casing of an intended mark, prison system indoctrination, etc., the members, the students, the recruits, the employees, the assigned "numbers," etc., are subjected to a recognized or sometimes even an unrecognized method by which the old or previous is subjected to a dismemberment, a reinterpretation, an unraveling, or an analysis which may or may not focus on a particular short-coming; and may... depending on methodology, instead focus on the benefits to be obtained if one persists in the situation which retrains them. (Even for those obstinate few who are reading this and think they know it all and suggest they are present as a mere refresher course.) The adoption of a New Communism is a means by which humanity is subjected to a reality check, by dispelling the Old Communism as a fantasy born in the minds of those persisting in the indulgence of a primitive orientation of expectation of some idealized Utopia which can not be realized under environmental conditions which are incrementally deteriorating. And no, this is not talking specifically about human-caused pollutions. Needless to say, but it needs to be said so as not to be perceived as presenting an idea that retains some aura of mystery with a cryptic message that can be variously interpreted from the perspective of anyone with a notion of using another's idea by transforming it from a vague generality into a personalized specificity; there is little humanity can realistically do to stop the deterioration because that which is occurring on Earth is but a microcosm of that occurring in the solar system, the galaxy and apparently the whole of the Universe. Present formulas of Communism and all other socio-political ideologies are but different variations of themes representing scales of accommodation to the deterioration and are therefore rationalizations imaginatively described as being rational.
The present perspective of a "New Communism" is of course contrasted with the "Old Communism" of Marx and Engles ("ME"), Though it should be noted that the "ME Communism" advocated by the "ME Communists" is a Socialist doctrine of a distinct orientation owing to the egocentricity of both Marx and Engles. In other words, Socialism is called Communism if it adheres to the Marx/Engles doctrine and all non-Marx/Engles perspectives are generally termed to be Socialism, though varying practices of both styles have occurred in different forms, along with Democracy, Libertarianism and Anarchy; in both present and past human collectivities large and small. We simply do not customarily attach such socio-political labels to economic practices of the past, owing to the fact that the egotistical structure of the human mind (amongst at least social and economic thinkers), have some need to present their views as having some especiality according to a given word, application or definition. Intended specialities to promote a person's particularized view often do not like the usage of generalities (unless they are particularly fortuitous), though humans throughout history have shown themselves to be generalists as well as scavengers. Unfortunately, these latter two words are most often defined with a specificity oriented towards food or hand-held anthropologically designated artefactual implements and are not applied to an overall perception of mental activity dubbed human cognition.
And let me note that while adopting the usage of the "ME" reference to Marx and Engles, the "ME Communist" phrase reminded me of the fabricated primitive expression once heard recited by the Tarzan television character when he said "ME Tarzan" and also by the scripted language of the Native American Tonto in the Lone Ranger Television series when he referred to himself as "ME Kimosabi" and referenced his partner as "HIM Lone Ranger". The two and three-patterned word phrases are reminiscent of the small phrases used by young children in their trials to mimic adult expressions. But all jocularity aside (at least for the moment), let me begin by referencing the historical phases (or if you prefer, "stages") of the social-economic development of Marx and Engles as being represented by models exhibiting a (three-patterned) 4, 5 or 6-patterned structural layout. Please indulge my abbreviations since my primary effort at this point is to highlight the three-patterned "4-5-6" ensemble, just as I had once did for the 1908 papers of Einstein, in that some references said he had 3 famous papers, another reference said he had four, and still another said he had five. Even with information at one's fingertips, the record of the actuality is often fabricated.
4 STAGES: Modules on Marx: II On the stages of economic development
According to Marx, human civilization has manifested itself in a series of organizational structures, each determined by its primary mode of production, particularly the division of labor that dominates in each stage:
- the tribal form. Tribal society has no social classes but is structured around kinship relations, with hunting the province of men and domestic work the province of women.
- primitive communism: "the ancient communal and State ownership which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest".
- feudal or estate property: "Like tribal and communal ownership, it is based again on a community; but the directly producing class standing over against it is not, as in the case of the ancient community, the slaves, but the enserfed small peasantry".
- capitalism: because of the eventual growth of commerce (and of human populations), feudal society began to accumulate capital, which, along with the increased debt incurred by the aristocracy, eventually led to the English Revolution of 1640 and the French Revolution of 1789, both of which opened the way for the establishment of a society structured around commodities and profit (i.e. capitalism).
The problem with this idea about there being no social classes amongst tribal peoples is wrong. When we define "social class" as a division of labor, there are clear distinctions of who, when, where, and how foodstuffs are gathered and prepared. Just because they share the same general communal dining area and don't wear name tags nor are provided private offices and parking spots doesn't mean there are no subtlety observed class divisions such as the tribal leader, his/her family, the witch doctor/herbalist female or medicine woman, the hunters, keeper of the flame, trail blazer(s), teachers, members of the council, tool/weapon maker, etc.... The same situation would occur if a large city's population were forced to share a small area. Different social classes would be lumped together and a new ordering of how the former social classes were divided would thus adapt to the changed environmental circumstances, but social class distinctions would nonetheless occur. And no matter how someone(s) may want to erase or obscure the activity of creating divisions, a different pecking order would nonetheless arise. What we see occurring in the usage of words and definitions, is the usage of a differentiated classification system that acts as its own type of social class division amongst those sharing particular words and definitions. For example, we use the terms "pecking order" to describe behavior amongst birds we commercialized into a foodstuff which becomes anal-stuff:
Pecking Order: (Refers to a) basic pattern of social organization within a flock of poultry in which each bird pecks another lower in the scale without fear of retaliation and submits to pecking by one of higher rank.
("pecking order." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.)
However, then we humans use a different phrase and assign what we believe to be significantly different behavior amongst those animals which are not customarily viewed as foodstuffs, and routinely become aligned with some entertainment venue such as being placed in a zoo or as a pet in a cage in our homes. Similarly, we see this in having a public expectation for the defined dirty, anal described corporations giving up more of their money in taxes, but we don't see the same clamor against those who we engage in our television sets and entertain us like sports figures, music figures, or theatrical performers who often use their exorbitant wealth to undermine having to pay their share of taxes by developing some sort of monetary feed-back loop called a foundation. What a bunch of filthy hypocrites we humans are.
For groups of mammals (e.g., baboon, wolf) or other birds, the term "dominance hierarchy" is usually used, and the ranking often involves feeding or mating.
A form of animal social structure in which a linear or nearly linear ranking exists, with each animal dominant over those below it and submissive to those above it in the hierarchy. Dominance hierarchies are best known in social mammals, such as baboons and wolves, and in birds, notably chickens (in which the term peck order or peck right is often applied).
In most cases the dominance hierarchy is relatively stable from day to day. Direct conflict is rare; an animal usually steps aside when confronted by one of higher rank. Temporary shifts occur; for instance, a female baboon mated to a high-ranking male assumes a high rank for the duration of the pair bond. An individual weakened by injury, disease, or senility usually moves downward in rank.
("pecking order." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.)
When it comes to humans, we use such terms as "social stratification," "social mobility," "social enlightenment" and multiple other references that help to increase our egotistical assumptions of even having basic behaviors which differ from the presumed lowly animals which surround and out number us. Whereas we might be the underdog when compared to the quantity of insects and floral fauna in the world, we can evaluate ourselves into elevated positions by using words and definitions to distance ourselves further and further from any semblance to all other life forms, biological connections notwithstanding. Because we can define ourselves as THE CHOSEN ONE, THE SPECIAL ONE in the anthropomorphic idea known as a God with similar attributes such as eyes, ears, feelings, etc., as we have; it must be true because we can think it. Because we say it is so, it is so. Because Marx and Engles said their ideas was the ONE, TRUE Communism, all of us are to take it as fact, without question. The presumed "scientific" theory of class as designed by Marx and Engles that so many have fallen prey to in using as their own means of interpreting human and other non-human social stratifications; such as can be seen in hierarchical arrangements of computer codes (and coders are oblivious to how training in an academic "top down/bottom up" system of dichotomization can influence such); need to be subjected to an environment of de-brain washing, that is if what they have in their brains was not established by some sort of "critical period" from which the only cure for their adopted insanity is a swift kick in the rear so as to jar their head out of their back pocket.
Human classification systems are part of the hierarchy we are using in developing classification systems because we impose our filthy, nasty and brutish egos onto different subject matter. Our classification systems exhibit a biased prejudice. We find our discriminatory behavior throughout business, politics and religion. We humans have so much difficulty seeing past the biases used in our classification systems, the greater truth desired by so many researchers is impossible to be obtained because the definitions being used limit the interpretation of the materials being analyzed.
Note: Thomas Hobbs made the following comment that I just couldn't resist altering so that the people in the future will get a more accurate sense of the primivity under which of the present are living. His idea has been so frequently used as to express a type of classification system others align their cognition with:
Without peace, he observed, man lives in "continual fear, and danger of violent death," and what life he has is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” What Hobbes calls the "laws of nature," the system of moral rules by which everyone is bound, cannot be safely complied with outside the state, for the total liberty that people have outside the state includes the liberty to flout the moral requirements if one's survival seems to depend on it.
("Hobbes, Thomas." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.)
I have altered the above to include the centrically named topic of the ego: With the current hierarchical stratification of the Ego, instead of living in peace, man lives in "continual fear, and danger of violent death," and what life he has is (notice the hierarchy of Hobb's thought processing):
- "Solitary" (a life of quieted desperation),
- "Poor" (institutionally created impoverishments),
- "Nasty" (lack of adequate health care, nutrition, clean water, clean clothes, hygiene materials)
- "Brutish" (crude, vulgar, poorly educated, self-absorbed),
- "Short" (thank goodness for short life spans or humanity's reign of terror would be more prolonged than it already is).
5 STAGES: Feudalism; Bourgeois Capitalism; Socialism; and Communism. Wikipedia: Historical Materialism
5 STAGES: Marxism, Communism, and the stages-of-growth)
The main modes of production that Marx identified generally include: Primitive Communism, Slave society, Feudalism, Mercantilism, and Capitalism.
6 STAGES: Primitive Communism, Imperialism, Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism. Learn Economics on line
It is the latter six I will touch later on about in that they represent what can be described as 3 stages before and 3 stages beginning at what we of the present refer to as Capitalism, though one might describe them as Lower and Higher stages of Capitalism, if not also Communism. In addition, let me also note that there exists a Two-stage theory (or stagism) model called the Marxist-Leninist political theory: That underdeveloped countries must pass through a stage of capitalism and then a socialist stage: Two-stage Theory
But at this point, let me step back three alligator steps (as we used to say in the childhood game of Mother-May-I, though we never actually stepped backwards), but in a game like hopscotch one does turn around and some board games incorporate the provision that one may be forced to start over or retreat, as opposed to being kicked out of the game whereby the entire game may come to an end because there is only one, two, or otherwise limited number of players to make a game fun.
However, for those readers who do not like a writer to digress by making mention of some analogy which is interpreted to be too distracting from an other-wise topic you take very seriously, I will attempt to restrain myself from making any further comments non-serious "aside" comments, though it should be note that I both laughed and shook my at head at the nonsense to which the Communist Manifesto provides. For all the hype I had heard in different quarters of intellectual endeavor in past decades, I was sorely disappointed when I got around to reading it. Though the same is often true for many of the movies and music that others have suggested I listen to. Whatever they see and hear, I truly must be someone from a different planet because I just do not appreciate their interest. Admittedly, I prefer music theory over music and have found what I think are good movies made by foreign movie productions, but are routinely overlooked by most everyone I know.
A perspective which proposes a "New Communism" ideology can be described as a "New Government" orientation designated as a "Cenocracy" (Ceno/recent = New, cracy = government). Then again, it is a word which satisfactorily designates the proposal of multiple other progressive sociological considerations as well, though they may be oblivious to the word. Hence an advocate of a Cenocracy may be termed a "Cenocrat" professing an Ultra- progressive agenda that does not necessarily correspond with the so-called professed progressive agendas such as the silly LGBTQ self-absorptions with their hands down their pants and attempted intellectualized hands down the pants of every official as a means of manipulation; infantile environmentalist orientations; self-aggrandizing journalistic left/right wing see-sawing good guy/bad guy alternatives recital as some supposed higher evaluation proposal; etc... Furthermore, the notion of a "Cenocracism" arises as an embodiment thereof to replace the old designation of "Communism," which when aligned next to Socialist doctrine, admittedly shows itself to be a psychologically based "selfie" of Marx and Engles, whose first initials appropriately designate the definition which should be applied to Communism, since the Communism of Marx and Engles is their version of a Socialism that they can be interpreted as viewing an effeminate representation of their (rather dogmatic) masculine formula of Socialism.
In other words, "Socialism" used by others in Marx's era can be interpreted to have been viewed as a weakling by Marx, Engles and others; being placed into the position in which women of their time period were type-cast, and that their brand of Socialism dubbed 'Communism,' having inculcated traits from a variety of sources (involving past and era-current views)— including the despised religions; infused their idea with a hard-nosed (obstinate, narcissistic, self-indulging, etc.,) masculinity that was appropriately accepted in their day and age by "real thinking men" that feminists have long overlooked and thus do not have an academic culture which is intellectually astute enough in its traditions... to take issue with, because of the oversight. An oversight which blatantly over-steps the presence of the "ME" (Marx/Engles) monogram which defines the psychological projections of them to be found in their brand of Socialism which they labeled as Communism so as to ingratiate themselves with an independent identity of to-be-noted self-importance.
The "ME" brand of Socialism favored by Marx and Engles reeks of a primivity... a primitive stage not included nor even considered in his three-stages idea. (Three stages prior to the beginning of what we call modern Capitalism and the three stages which begin at its inception, which lay anywhere between the 13th to 17th centuries, depending on what sources one looks at, and whether or not we include other-than European cultures. Ideas about the origin of Capitalism are like other ideas in which from an egocentric European frame of mind, means Europeans are the central player in most of human history.)
The Marx and Engles' brand of Socialism clearly expresses their ignorance of psychology, biology and the ongoing incremental deterioration of the environment and that humanity's life cycle must be viewed in terms which encapsulates the realization it is to be viewed with a valuation similar to the life cycle of vinegar flies (commonly called fruit flies). The fruit fly is an organism with different breeds, much like humanity, wherein those designated as the Drosophila, are used in genetic experiments because the life span is short and the measured effects of one or another experimentations can be easily viewed occurring over multiple generations. In relation to itself, and not in the fashion which customarily measures a human life span set next to geological changes which gives a false appreciation of the changes having undergone in human existence within a timeline set against itself as the backdrop and not a cellular-chemical, astronomical or microscopic-'genetical' one.
Granted I am aware that the word "Communism" evokes 3 over-riding notions, and that at this beginning, the reader must be attuned to the realization that Karl Marx did not describe THE PREEMINENT MODEL of Communism, but an extremely primitive form of an archetypal ideal that was given the name "Communism" which refers to a social system of equalized communalism. We find bits and pieces of this archetype occurring in religion, sociology, philosophy, yoga, art, music, and multiple other subjects.
None of the models are perfect though they provide a degree of embraced satisfaction for those who maintain a life-long dedicated interest into a belief; by which they learn to navigate the many different waves of economy which incline humanity towards differing gradations of peaceful co-existence as well as troublesome destructive alternatives— as an expressed practice of a cognitive pattern commonly referred to as a syllogism by some and as a dialectical by others— though alternative assignments of different language vernaculars might well describe with the three-patterned idea of yin + yang = unity, unless more symbolic renderings remove the usage of words and instead describe it as 1 + 1 = 3, with the second variable either seen as a distinctive individual named as "2" or as a paired androgynous figure of the "1". Different perspectives from different cultures or different subject matter reveals an underlying similarity of cognitive design that does not recognize the artificial geographical boundaries used by the primitive egotisms of humanity.
Marx's ideology as an expressed primitive thought procession is a very important distinction which needs to be set into the framework of the following context as one continues reading. Let me insist on emphasizing that Marx was an ignorant individual— based on his lack of knowledge about social and biological as well as psychological development because such knowledge was lacking in his time, and all he could do was present generalities which have later been used in attempted constructions by those with enhanced knowledge to promote their own political motivations which have created undeserved monuments to him. He is not a god and the word "Communism" is not some sacred oath to be sung as a mantra by those who sincerely want humanity to move towards and achieve an enlightened realization of all its potentialities. Praising Marxian ideology as an individual or as a collective does not create conditions by which the word is thus transformed into some viable incantation, no matter how many or what different kinds of emotions are stirred into the kettle of like-minded concoctions.
What some adherents to his ideology do for him would be like anthropology students erecting shrines for precursor models of the human lineage because their body design admitted to some future realization to be obtained byway of a revolutionary process labeled Evolution. It is pathetically stupid to build shrines and intellectual discussions around him and the word Communism in what amounts to be ceremonialisms by which others can be ritualized into a respective clan as if it were an induction process through which given tasks of memorization are to be accomplished as if such memorization and recital thereof insures the presence of a reality wrought by purely speculative considerations akin to the tales told by ancient peoples around a campfire while passing around some crudely stilled inebriating drug that one might label as the socialized 'grog', though intellectualization and emotion have sometimes effected an intoxicating level of diffused consciousness on their own, without need for an added substance involving taste (drugs, drink, warm blood, etc...), or smell (incense, a fresh kill, poor hygiene, etc...), or sight (dimmed light by way of candles, bonfires, campfires, torches, etc.), or touch (direct or indirect environmental occurrences), or sound (repetitive music, drum beats, humming, singing, chanting, speeches, content, etc...).
If anyone of the early pre-cursive human ancestors had written an account proposing some Utopic idealization to occur in some future time; and today's civilizations were likewise considered to be that which was written about; they too might be enshrined by mediocre minds surveying present social conditions as undesirable and sincerely want to assist in achieving some idealized improvement, though they do not have the personal inventive means to conceptualize a receptive idea of their own: They are given little choice then to adopt and adapt to such primitive ideas as Marxian ideology because no other intelligent person's ideas are being forcefully exhibited onto social discussions. Particularly during an era when business, government and religion take advantage of the many types of public distraction being used as tools of competition to sell different products, and let the concerns and considerations of the people be otherwise damned into senseless because they do not afford the rich and powerful with a means to increase their desired wealth.
Indeed, the views of idiots are permitted to remain as dominant topics because current education systems are first and foremost bought and paid for through government sponsorships designed as a means by which old ideas persist while insisting all students toe-the-line of acceptance or be punished by receiving a poor grade if they should venture towards a course of indulging creative thinking, whereby such old ideas can be used to keep the public in a state of ignorance for those few who manage to wade through the morass of nonsense and develop means and methods of exploitation for selfish reasons. Much like religions which inculcated pagan ideas so as to more easily manipulate the public into its ideology set up to manifest a system by which their personal wealth could be increased. It is an economic plan that is accepted (though not necessarily actively acknowledged) by practitioners of a given government because it exploits the reigning pagan belief of today that religions are sacred and must be protected in order to survive; though all of them swear their god is all powerful, all knowing and exists everywhere and will protect and provide... so long as such a god is believed in by the usage of man-made laws to keep such pagan observations intact. Governments have thus adopted the usage of pagan ideology to promote itself as well and acquire the means to reap a larger return for such an investment.
Here are the 3 over-riding notions which commonly reoccur when the topic of "Communism" comes up for many people:
- That it is a pernicious disease which often afflicts the young to exhibit mindless acts of intolerance and expected obedience to fanactism.
- Distasteful images emerge of an anti-democracy theory supported by an advocacy of violence, destruction and intolerance.
- Is akin to three presumptive commensurate evils:
- Capitalism
- Big Government
- Socialism
However, these three do not represent the greater ideal which can be imagined for a future civilization, though many have referred to this as being a Communism. The above three are a portrayal of How Karl Marx's primitive Communist ideology came to be further mangled and corrosively applied because of his discriminatory perceptions and prejudices. More plainly stated, Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engel's brand of Communism is a crude and vulgar interpretation and ideological illustration of archetypal ideas for an ideal government. Archetypal ideas which span many generations and may well have begun in the earliest processes of human intelligibility, albeit in varying forms of muted grunts, spittaled invectives, and creatively fomented idealizations that the possessor thereof sought relief from because they were not the status quo view of a clan or tribe; who sought to relieve them of their 'demons' or 'demonic possession' by way of sacrifice for the good of the clan, subjugation to a lower social status, or used as an experimental guinea pig for some witch-crafting doctor that sought to cure them by way of trephination, or drilling a hole in the head of someone who is experiencing thoughts which are alternative to those which are not the customary world-view seemingly shared by everyone else.
For many adherents, if they had gotten to spend time in the company of Marx and Engles and knew the language, the idioms, the contracted social vernacular as it was used in their era as it was when taking into consideration a List of Conflicts in 19th Century Europe as well as well as a Timeline of 19th century Scientific Discoveries, prior to the ensuing world wars; they might well have become disgusted by the thoughts, actions, and activities of Marx and Engles on a day-by-day association instead of by way of romanticized idealizations which many followers appear to hold as can be gathered from reading their biased and skewed interpretations of Communism being read with so little an attempted scholarship. Analogically, the same holds true for those who have an interest in their family's genealogy. If they had an opportunity to go back in time and visit a former relative, they might well come away with a difference of opinion than the possible romanticized notions which they may presently harbor. Indeed, as a third example, if one had an opportunity to visit their parents at some time during their youth, they might find they don't like them, and in fact might experience a disgust and loathing if not an embarrassment and wish to be disassociated from them. "Hanging out" with one's parents, relatives or even presently liked neighbors when they were young might prove to be not as fun or intellectually or imaginatively interesting as one presupposes from a survey of later adult behavior. Disappointments might well be aplenty just as one's own children might not want to be associated with them in their youth... if one or another truth be known.
I should also mention that the terms "Democracy, Socialism, and Communism" can be viewed as variations of the same underlying theme which is a focus towards establishing a greater social equilibrium. Whereas Socialism is sometimes referred to as a primitive form of Communism, others view them as variations of being the same thing, though others are inclined to define Communism as defined by the Marx/Engles scripture thereof. Democracy on the other hand is not routinely described as a primitive form of Socialism nor Communism, though its practice is a participation in the usage of both ideologies. Hence, one may think of these three as a "3-in-1" configuration, that may alternatively be viewed as sibling rivals born to the same family of human mentality. They are, in a sense, gradations of the same thing... or if one prefers a psychology interpretation, let us say different personalities with different names wearing different attire (social costumes with masks and perfume/cologne- cosmetics), with affected vernaculars used to conceal that they are triplets. The ideas of Libertarianism and Anarchy might well be viewed as moods thereof, alternating between developmental expressions characteristic of temper tantrums, rebelliousness, happy-go-luckiness, obstinacy, defiance, etc...
However, there is a great need to include religion in the discussion because religious beliefs are very much a makeup of human psychology, though a given person such as Marx thinks to obsolete them by an ideological exclusion. Religious ideas are very much an expression of different sociological considerations, with many extolling the same view of removing private ownership and having a centralized distribution center to equalize resources, yet in all cases thus far encountered, all major religions have a hierarchy that is housed, clothed, well fed and provided uncompromising health care, yet many adherents experience varying degrees of impoverization. Whereas many millions are taken in by way of tithing and other collections, followers are frequently given a meager return for their investment, and will not be given more because the attitude of leaderships is that if they are willing to suffer by way of being given an illusion which works as a narcotic or other form of inebriation, they will not leave the fold. They would prefer to suffer and even die than to admit that their life has been spent believing in a falsehood that serves the managerial hierarchy better than the flock is served. Nonetheless, all religions are sociological formulas, and many hold extreme views of compliance and expectation, on par with the patriotisms and military sacrifices of politics which most often serve the interest of a given corporation's efforts to increase its wealth and provide campaign contributions to a given political leadership. It is both a ti-for-tat and quid-pro-quo reality of how business and government leaderships are organized.
The so called "Great Three" Monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), having been born in the similar sand dunes called desert communities of the Middle East, all exhibit an orientation involved with socialization of a given people... and may, without too much imagination, be said to form a lineages of a developing human brain. While in one sense each of them are intellectual isolates that favor a given people, though they may envision a desire for a global application, are gradations of the same mental "self" preoccupation, and thus can be viewed as an extension of early psycho-sexual stage of development. They can also be viewed as part of a longer lineage of either an adaptation which provides a survival advantage, or some characteristic anomaly which developed by way of some peculiar or time-range specificity which has periodically acted on the peculiarity of that which we describe as mental activity. Such a view of considerations is well established:
Cognitive scientists underlined that religions may be explained as a result of the brain architecture that developed early in the genus Homo, through the history of life. However, there is disagreement on the exact mechanisms that drove the evolution of the religious mind. The two main schools of thought hold that either religion evolved due to natural selection and has selective advantage, or that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of other mental adaptations. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, believed that religion was an exaptation (how evolution uses what is available), or a spandrel (a byproduct evolutionary characteristic), in other words that religion evolved as byproduct of psychological mechanisms that evolved for other reasons.
Evolutionary origin of religions
The evolution of religion and morality: Researchers explore cultural evolutionary roots of religion
Date of Origination: Sunday, December 22nd, 2019... 12:28 PM
Initial Posting: Saturday, February 1st, 2020... 12:50 PM
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com