pg 1
(The Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org
As a researcher interested in the threes phenomena, attention is invariably drawn towards an analysis of different mental aspects (subject areas), including the brain itself, because of all the many different types and kinds of three-patterned examples encountered in our patterns-of-three cataloguing efforts. Such a diversion is made more poignant by the fact that this same organ, in different individuals, is sometimes inclined to preferentially be focused on patterns other than the three-related organizational method.
Cultural anthropologists have recognized what appear to be dominant numerically identifiable themes in the perspective of an entire society, such as the widely acknowledged patterns-of-four or five usage in some early Native American cultures, that can be contrasted to a predominant three-patterned orientation in the present larger American society. However, this largely unrecognized "threes consciousness" has what appears to be a type of regressive patterned orientation unknowingly being practiced by an intra-culturally selective group. It is portraying an inclination towards using (for our present analytical purposes) a different numerically identifiable organizational method than what most others appear to be using, whether or not either members of the dominant or selective group are aware of such a usage.
Though I am reticent abut using the word "subversion," to describe the situation, in a manner of speaking it nonetheless provides a means to identify what may be a form of delimiting factor coincidental with the human species having developed and continuing to live in environmental circumstances that impose inhibitions to growth... like seasons, like disease, like death. Whatever the originating factor, such should be viewed as the subversives and not necessarily those in the population who appear to inculcate such influences into their day to day interactive routines. While common usage of the word "subvert" implies an active conscious act; the subverting act in the present sense is the outcome of an underlying disposition to have a mental perspective designed in accord with some pattern other than which can be called the predominant orientation in the larger society.
For example, while working with both youth and adult offenders, I encountered a wide-spread dominant patterns-of-two usage when such individuals were organizing their thoughts about various interests and topics they were familiar with. Even though thinking in patterns-of-two does not in itself signify a criminal mentality, it does bear witness to a difference in a dominant thinking orientation in contrast to those who don't commit crimes and have a preference for patterns-of-three, whether or not they are even aware of such a usage in their day-to-day lives.
Note: Amongst those criminal offenders that I introduced the views of patterns-of-two and patterns-of-three, some were extremely adamant about the world being in "twos", with the "three" as an anomaly. Some became visibly angered by interpreting my comments as a confrontation with information that suggested their world-view was less than what they esteemed it to be, like a religious adherent being subjected to information that provided a perspective that was not only contrary to their own, but detailed errors in their thinking about what they held to be inviolably sacred. But... I have also encountered easily diffusible intellectual contention amongst non-criminally oriented and college educated individuals who viewed my comments more as an exercise in a mental strategy exploration such as one might encounter in a chess game, poker match or some calculated move amongst a sports manager or coach, and not as a toe-to-toe, no-holds-barred, backed-against-a-wall fisticuffs brawl, nor a get--out--of-town or else proclamation.
Admittedly, the collection of incarcerated individuals that I spoke with was a small one, with respect to the many thousands upon thousands that are in the United States, much less the rest of the world. None-the-less, those that I spoke with had a preference for viewing the world in patterns-of-two that should further be defined as diametrically positioned "oppositional". It is also necessary to elaborate this definition with the notion of adversity as in "adversary" and not some altruistic generality such as what a word like "diversity" might bring to mind. Though not all the patterns-of-two in a criminal's repertoire are adversarially matched pairs from the perspective of those who do not hold a similar perspective, most appear to be thought of as thus amongst criminals themselves. Further more, for those readers who at this point have taken an oppositional stance to what has already been provided, let me additionally confess I am aware that my sample could have been the result of an institutionally arranged cultural bias, or some other such selectively isolated phenomena of enculturation for a given population. Despite the reader's objections, I will nonetheless continue with this expose' by providing some of the patterns-of-two which were mentioned.
The incarcerated individuals with whom I spoke, predominantly and preferentially saw their world in a dichotomous, oppositionally/antagonistically organized fashion, even though you and I would not necessarily attribute an inherently prevailing antagonism to any of their examples. These types of serially arranged opposites, as they might be referred to, must be contrasted with non-criminally focused (parallel) dualism: as is portrayed in the following table:
|
|
I use the terms "serial" to denote an infused hierarchical inference and "parallel" to describe a side-by-side acknowledgement of differences without suggesting a distinction of superiority/inferiority. Examined from the logistical alignment of electrical circuitry, the criminal's electrical brain circuitry preferentially uses a "This but not/ This" mode of selection, while the non-criminal's dualism uses a "This And | Or That" selectivity mode of operation. And why not? The human brain is widely known as a conglomeration of electrical impulses going from one synapse to another synapse.
And since this page appears at a threesological enterprising web site, I will include a listing of "associatable" patterns-of-three, even though the reader might prefer their own version of what is meant by "The Middle Way" (without intending to infer some link with a Near Eastern philosophy of centrality or moderation):
|
|
Let me emphasize that OF COURSE all of us can see the same diametric oppositionals that criminals do. And yes, there are moments when many of us will view the same patterns-of-two as dichotomies or as dualisms, but we also engage in more than just a moment's impulsive exercise with respect to using patterns-of-three. A mind with an underlying dynamically operating three-patterned architecture is more flexible than a mind with an underlying statically positioned two-patterned statuette formula (with or without a chip on its shoulder).
For the discussion at hand, take two copies of Michaelangelo's statue "David" and leave one untouched. It will portray a patterns-of-three thinking individual. Then take the other copy and place tattoo's on its body. Pierce various portions and fit them with whatever you can find or you feel has some meaning. Cover one or more areas of the body with some gang garb and place a knife or gun in concealment. Make sure you have some loud noise (called "their" music) emanating nearby. In a very minor sense, the latter statue represents a criminalized form of patterns-of-two thinking.
In contrast to a criminal's concentratively used two-patterned mentality, the non-criminally oriented person preferentially use patterns-of-three whether or not a person is aware of it. This doesn't mean that someone who adopts the usage of a pattern-of-three, due to some social expectation, won't or can't commit a condemnable crime, because many predators don condition-related or environment-specific forms of camouflage, like a rapist going through the motions of a police officer in order to subdue prey whose personal defensive measure guards are let down because of the presence of someone who is commonly accepted as a public trust figure. However, despite the quality of one's "hidden in plain sight" camouflaging techniques, it is difficult for a predominantly two-patterned oriented individual to live in an environment where patterns-of-three prevail as the foremost orientation, unless the individual is amongst those or under conditions that serve as a buffering system to conflicts of interpretation and definition that ensue, even though events of the same perception are initially identically acknowledged. They are like a two-sided square peg trying to find their place in a three-sided hole. Invariably they have three choices, and one of those frequently leads them astray into conflicts that can escalate into criminal behavior.
At this point in the discussion some readers will exclaim that everyone knows criminals think differently, but why do they? What causes them to think differently,... to have a predominant two-patterned mental structure whether defined as static or dynamic? Were they deprived of Fairy tales and rhymes such as the Three Bears, Three Billy Goats Gruff, Three Kittens who lost their mittens, Old King Cole and his fiddlers three, Cinderella and her two sisters, Wynken-Blynken-Nod, Jack and the Beanstalk's three magic beans, three reward items, or three chances to guess Rumplestiltskin's name? Is it possible that criminality could be prevented simply by providing all children with a consistent exposure to such patterns-of-three reinforced by other day-to-day examples provided by loving adults? What would a child psychologist say to such a supposition? Let us take a look at what one noted child psychologist thought about Fairy Tales:
|
Bruno Betteleheim |
| BRINGING ORDER INTO CHAOS |
|
Before and well into the Oedipal period (roughly ages three to six or seven), the child's experience of the world is chaotic, but only as seen from an adult point of view, because chaos implies an awareness of this state of affairs. If this "chaotic" fashion of experiencing the world is all one knows, then it is accepted as the way the world is. In the language of the Bible, which expresses the deepest feelings and insights of man, in the beginning the world was "without form." The way to overcome chaos is also told in the Bible: "God divided the light from darkness." During and because of the Oedipal struggles, the outside world comes to hold more meaning for the child and he begins to try to make sense of it. He no longer takes for granted that the confused way he sees the world is the only possible and appropriate one. The manner in which the child can bring some order into his world view is by dividing everything into opposites. In the later Oedipal and post-Oedipal ages, this splitting extends to the child himself. The child, like all of us, is at any moment in a welter of contradictory feelings. But while adults have learned to integrate these, the child is overwhelmed by these ambivalences within himself. He experiences the mixture of love and hate, desire and fear within himself as an incomprehensible chaos. He cannot manage feeling at one and the same moment both good and obedient, yet bad and rebellious, although he is. Since he cannot comprehend intermediate stages of degree and intensity, things are either all light or all darkness. One is either all courage or all fear; the happiest or the most miserable; the most beautiful or the ugliest; the smartest or the dumbest; one either loves or hates, This is also how the fairy tale {and in a metaphorical sense, the Criminal} depicts the world: Figures are
Every figure is essentially one-dimensional, enabling the child to comprehend its actions and reactions easily. Through simple and direct images the fairy story helps the child sort out his complex and ambivalent feelings, so that these begin to fall each one into a separate place, rather than being all one big muddle. As he listens to the fairy tale, the child gets ideas about how he may create order out of the chaos which is his inner life. The fairy tale suggests not only isolating and separating the disparate and confusing aspects of the child's experience into opposites, but projecting these onto different figures. |
This childhood activity of "dividing the world into opposites" (whether it is a conscious or unconscious act) is not a level of thinking that all people grow out of in the sense of the same processes of maturation we can find occurring in various parts of our bodies as we get older. Because the lack of development towards a pattern-of-three perspective is so wide-spread, it is a common practice to define its recurring presence in our lives as a product of being normal, and not as an indication of a stopping point of a particular individual's cognitive development. When we do come across someone whose mental development is growing beyond this childhood activity of putting the world into opposites, we necessarily find some form of three-patterned idea being formulated, and there are many, such as is exemplified by the following comments found in the same chapter by Betteleheim:
|
Even Freud found no better way to help make sense out of the incredible mixture of contradictions which coexist in our mind and inner life than by creating (Three) symbols for isolated aspects of the personality. He named these Id, Ego and Superego. If we, as adults, must take recourse to the creation of separate entities to bring some sensible order into the chaos of our inner experiences, how much greater is the child's need for this! Today adults use such (3 to 1) concepts as id, ego, superego and ego-ideal to separate out internal experiences and get a better grasp on what they are all about. Unfortunately, in doing so we have lost something which is inherent in the fairy tale: the realization that these externalizations are fictions, useful only for sorting out and comprehending mental processes (placed into a three-patterned contextually comprehensible array). Giving the inner processes separate names-id, ego, superego--made them entities, each with its own propensities. When we consider the emotional connotations these abstract terms of psychoanalysis have for most people using them, then we begin to see that these abstractions are not all that different from the personifications of the fairy tale. When we speak of the asocial and unreasonable id pushing the weak ego around or the ego doing the superego's bidding, these scientific similes are not much different from the allegories of the fairy tale. (Note: One might even say they are fairytales for the adult brain: Three characters with three different qualities set into a narrative called psychology.) In the latter, the poor and weak child is confronted by the powerful witch that knows only its own desires and acts on them, without regard to any consequences. When the meek tailor in the Brothers Grimm's "The Valiant Little Tailor" manages to subdue two huge giants by making them fight each other, is he not acting as the weak ego does when it plays id against superego and, by neutralizing their opposite energies, gains rational control over these irrational forces? |
Or, as will be mentioned below, advocating the development of programs that redirects an individual's obstinacy to confront itself, instead of individualized aspects of a given program getting into a useless and wasteful tug-of-war. Those polarized forms of obstinacy that necessarily direct certain individuals along paths which lead to criminality, for whatever rhyme, reason, or rhythm, need to be addressed differently in order to remove and not just reduce, or relable recidivism rates on statistically kept government rosters.
The statement in the above enclosure about criminals provides an opening for me to nudge the present discussion along the line of associating the criminal individual with an animal, since the actions of some criminals are equated with that of a brutal beast, devoid of a humanity. The animal selected is the reptile, which is peculiarly applicable not only because of humanity's long term association with a serpent in Christian theology, but our usage of reptilian imagery with respect to dragons used by different cultures.
Most portrayals of the human brain typically display a side view and label parts of the brain in a fairly accurate and general way that suffices for most people. However, let us take a look at the reptilian section of the human brain from a side view, then a frontal view, and then compare the frontal perspective with a frontal view of a reptile known as the cobra snake:
 Side view of human brain showing reptilian brain in green. |
 Front sectioned view of human brain. |
 Front view of reptile known as the cobra snake. |
http://www.ashlandweb.com/human.capacities/brain.mind/brain2.html
Is the close similarity of appearance between the frontal view of the human reptilian brain and the reptilian Cobra snake a coincidence? Or does it suggest a hint of human brain origin that has not been extensively studied enough? This path of research needs to be traveled on by those with a different type of perspective than those who have looked into this area before.
Note: The many references to the idea of a snake symbolizing phallic /fecundity worship may be an external (cultural) imposition of an internal construct with a more fundamental (brain) origin than human sexuality. In other words, the usage of the snake to (supposedly) refer to the phallus (and associated fecundity) is but a simplistic rendering of a fundamental influence of brain structure image impression. [5:17 AM 02-19-07 Monday]
While there are many who are well aware of the analogy used in many contexts regarding criminals and reptilian-like bestial behavior, what is not discussed is the evolution that the "reptilian-like criminal" undergoes if and when they are not caught for committing those very first acts which lead them on towards developing more reptile-like behaviors. They are behaviors that are permitted to evolve into various forms of inhuman creatures because society did not catch them soon enough to stop the development through counseling, training, imprisonment, or they get killed through civil attempts at arrest or by state mandated sanctions. The evolution of the "reptilian-like criminal" has its own evolutionary tree, much like humanity has its own genealogical tree containing various types of hominids, each with its own forms of behavior and world views. In short, and to get to the point, the criminal can and does evolve into more hideous forms if permitted to do so.
However, it should also be noted that the criminal, as a reptilian creature with its own form of brain activity, is useful in those contexts where reflexive survival instincts may be more useful than what might be termed reflective rational thinking. It is appropriate in some contexts. It is how and by whom the circumstances are defined and judged which make them either criminal or not. Some observers have a very narrow, tunnel-visioned view while others have a broader, panoramic perspective. It should go without saying that such reflexive and instinctual behavior is witnessed by all of us in different contexts, some being defined as talent, genius, extrasensory, and even lucky. Most instinctual and reflexive behavior is not bad or injurious to oneself or others. Yes such behavior can cause accidents, but so can the inhibition of such instincts and reflexes.
Let us look at a presumptive evolutionary trek of humanity's lineage branching off into a separate but linked species I will dub Homo-Reptilicus Criminalensis:
Image adapted from:
http://www.kwic.com/~pagodavista/schoolhouse/species/herps/repanat.htm
Whereas the mind of humanity follows a one-two-three patterning, each person within a given personal developmental time-line, the true criminal (and not those who experience circumstances that force their innocence into a portraiture of criminality), appear to have a dominant mental development revolving around contentiously organized patterns-of-two. So when a child whose mind, for whatever reason, be it nutritional or otherwise, is lingering in a pattern-of-two orientation, and is thus subjected to a public school curriculum devised with multiple instances of three-patterned encounters they are asked to memorize, it's no wonder so many fall behind, join a gang of like-minded individuals, or wander off into their own world... be it defined derogatorily as criminal, strange, bizarre or weird, or in some preferentially positive manner.
Is it in their genetically derived nature, or is it the result of their nurturing, or does their particular type of genetics predispose them to criminality if nurtured in what has been referred to as factors which predispose certain individuals towards evolving into, or adopting a criminal life-style? Why is it that one person develops into using a life of crime and that another person from the same family does not? Is the criminal an individual who was subjected to trying to survive an onslaught of oppositional observances and circumstances in an environment others in the same were not directly confronted with? Were they forced to react in an antagonistic, oppositional manner for self protection or protection of another? Were those who saw themselves in a dominant position repeatedly attacking the person physically or verbally as a means of expressing pent up frustrations and anger?
There are many scenarios one may consider as that which "drove" a person towards criminality. Yet, we should also ask if there are conditions for which no person could be fashioned into a criminal? Along this same vein of thought, we should wonder if having been provided a "good" environment, (however you would care to define the word "good"), if not some or all present criminals would be otherwise? Such questions are valid in a philosophical discussion concerning criminality just as are questions regarding the validity of some laws, much less the means and methods for administering and enforcing them. The relevance of such questions is brought to light by the very many examples of mis-application of so-called justice which have occurred throughout history the world over. Most of which do not find their way into unbiased journalistic commentary, history books, or become motion pictures to feed the various forms of avarice and cosmetically contoured greed of producers and all those involved in the industry, from advertisers to zealots... without which, in all fairness, it must further be noted that many events in history would become relegated to the dustbin shelves of lost (overlooked/forgotten) antiquity.
But the foregoing examples of inquiry were preceded long ago by questions posed to those who worked day to day amongst not only adult and juvenile offenders, but those working with behavioral disordered children in public classrooms. I simply asked them what they though was needed to solve the problems that their respective populations became faced and dealt with in an anti-social or criminal fashion. Those working with adult offenders said that intervention needed to take place when the individual was in their teenage years. Those working with youth (teenage) offenders (status offenses notwithstanding), claimed that intervention needed to take place when they were younger. Those working with young behavioral disordered kids said that intervention needed to occur in pre-school years and directly related to the parents. Some parents would defend their actions by saying that their child rearing methods were that which was used by their parents. When the retrograde finger-pointing shifted away from human-subject methods of intervention, the topics of "good" nutrition and genetics was brought up. Everybody has a response to personal encounters with general rule-of-thumb exceptions... commonly addressed with a phrase such as "Maybe this or it might be due to such and such".
In spite of all efforts to intercede in the lives of individuals to make them happier, healthier, and more productive to themselves, their family, as well as to the society in which they inhabit, many, many, many attempts fail because some individuals are stubbornly obstinate towards change. A few will even go out of their way to ensure that nothing anyone does "to" them will make any difference. Interventionist programs must not be an extension of one or more egos of those involved with administering a given program. Programs must be fashioned to pit the obstinacy of the individual against themselves instead of creating a confrontational atmosphere of workers against one or more individuals. Such individuals frequently have a very narrow world-view. Like an infant that "knows" only its own immediate needs, their actions and efforts are an expressed ego-centricism.
An example of a limited world view can be recognized in the event of a gang member going from one city to another in an attempt by parents or relatives to try to get the individual away from "bad influences", only to find that no matter wear the individual goes, they tend to get into trouble, and conservatively expressed as "like flies attracted to a dung heap". It is not too uncommon to encounter the (largely unpracticed) view that the only way to change the recurring mindset of the individual is to strip them totally naked from everyone and everything that promotes their criminally oriented mentality, whether or not they are associated with a gang, since some loners also become entangled with criminality... and this precludes the acknowledgement of any mental disorder. Sending them to a relative who keeps in touch with a parent does not accomplish this task. Physical isolation is not always enough to force a psychological and emotional detachment in order for the individual to let their own self-worth attributes surface.
Sending so-called "problem child" individuals to relatives who are a constant reminder of a previous place, person(s) and condition(s) does not provide the necessary incentives to develop personal methods of sustained and useful change when they will invariably watch the same television programs, listen to the same music, have access to the same type of literature they familiarly gravitate behaviorally towards and look for the same cultural signs of self acknowledgment as they did in the previous place.
Such individuals need prolonged and sustained, life changing distractions from all of it... a new way of life that is in and of itself a philosophical perspective that directs the whole of their energies towards completion of a life-altering task that is meaningful and logically defensible. This is sometimes accomplished by joining a military service, a gender-specific school, a school with a dress-code, by getting a job which requires learning appreciated skills, and various other meaningfully absorbing activities. Unfortunately, some engage in criminal activities as a means to acquire that which they think is most valuable, no matter who gets hurt or what is destroyed.
Trying to force an individual to be, to think, to act like everyone else in the family or representative community, even though they are not involved in a gang or commit criminal offenses, such as by forcing an attendance at church, is absurdly ludicrous. One or more members of the family or community are only setting themselves up as an adversary against an individual's obstinacy... regardless of how, when, where, or why the obstinacy developed. In some cases, the so-called "obstinacy" is merely a defensive measure to instinctively protect a developing creative way of thinking that is slowly forming towards a productive means of expression along an individualized form of gestation process. Such gestation processes can be very frustration for parents, counselors and teachers, who want visible results to occur along schedules defined by bureaucrats who want to see some visible sign of accomplishment for the money they have provided for a given program. Needless to say, the gestation processes of creativity are not always amiable to bureaucratically imposed production schedules. Such individuals can at times best be understood and nurtured by those whose life has begun to emerge by way of a similar trek of personal development.
Most forms of intervention turn out to be an individual's shadow boxing partner, either on a physical, mental, or emotional level, whether it participates on an economic, social, or indistinctly described role. All forms of intervention should have the primary philosophical statement of attempting to help the individual to help themselves.
While working for a social services youth center several decades ago, I tried to apply the foregoing perspective to several individuals who began saying they would runaway. In a facility where the doors remained unlocked, there presence was strictly voluntary... or at least non-restrained by physical methods, though placement there through a social process acted as a restraint to most of them. For those individuals thinking about running away, I agreed with them that such a thought was a viable option, but that they should consider several things first:
- Make sure they leave with a full stomach.
- Where were they going to stay?
- Would they have enough food and water?
- Would they have a change of clothes?
- Where would they bathe if they didn't have a place to stay?
- Would they be safe from exploitation and manipulation?
Would they continue going to school or get a job?
I wasn't about to try to stop them and thus become a shadow boxing partner instead of the needed mirror imaging surface so that the individuals could rightly reflect upon themselves. Obviously the above short list doesn't provide additional considerations posed to them such as health care issues, lack of experience and what sorts of jobs they would or wouldn't be able to get, etc... And even though my actions prevented the very real possibility of several individuals running away, because my conversations turned the adversarial obstinacy back on the individuals in question, I was chastised by the reigning supervisors. They didn't want to give the impression of providing any youth with a reason to leave, since funding was commensurate with the number of youth that were served. (In other words, it was a quota system similar to what some police departments practice in order to secure funding by way of the number of tickets given out.) And even though my title was Youth Counselor, in reality I was expected to be nothing more than a glorified babysitter. From then on, every action I took was scrutinized in a negative way, even though prior to this I was congratulated for locking all the kids (teenagers) out when they chose to conduct a mass exodus to solidify their unity with one of the older kids's "play" (move) at showing dominance. My view was that if they all wanted to stay outside in the cold, let them do so. It was not a situation in which any of them actually wanted to be outside, it was merely a "follow the leader" form of game they were playing that I wasn't about to be conned into.
Society at large does not provide "re-directed obstinacy" programs with tax dollars, much less seek out those who would be effective at organizing and running such a program, with the appropriate level of funding to accomplish relevant social goals. Instead, more and more tax dollars are allocated for a ludicrously bulging criminal justice system... an after-the-fact approach.
Parents are, most often, left to their own devices in dealing with a criminally involved problem child, which is a variation of a too much, not enough, or tough love stance. Some efforts work, others do not do so well for particular individuals under particular contexts. Some parents give up. They have not the energy, time, nor resources to effect any sustained level of direct meaningful intervention. Such a loss of a child to the many labyrinthine corridors characteristic of social service departments and vagaries of criminal justice systems, regardless of the initially good intentions within these institutions interventionist attempts may have arisen; is a loss not only to the child themselves, but to their family, their respective societies and cultures, as well as all of humanity.
The extremely few and far between programs which work, use various optional methodologies of letting a child's own obstinacy to change... be that which changes them. It has been said that some Native Americans used to break wild horses by putting them in a pit with water and mud so that the impulses to flee and fight were eventually tamed by the expenditure of impulsive energy seeking not to be constrained. Metaphorically speaking, a parent needs to find the appropriate water and mud pit (or a Chinese finger puzzle, to use another analogy) for their wild, seemingly intractable stallion or mare. It is an extremely sad testament to the underlying state of a nation's health when it substitutes one social problem for that of another in terms of accepting the permissibility of an unwanted pregnancy or birth of a child to be an individual's primary motivation for "settling down", when they do not have the maturity, marketable job skills, nor education needed for bringing up a child that may have to be brought up by the wild horses' parents, grand parents, a relative, or some stranger... unless abortion is chosen as a logical alternative defined as an humanitarian gesture "for all concerned".
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Your Questions, Comments or Additional information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com