(Realization of a 3rd Consciousness)
→→→ Tripartite Collection 1 ←←←
| EP 1 EP 1b |
EP 2 EP 2b |
EP 3 EP 3b |
EP 4 | EP 5 | EP 6 |
| EP 7 | EP 8 | EP 9 EP 9b |
EP 10 EP 10b |
EP 11 EP 11b |
EP 12 EP 12b |
Detectives of the Mind as of Nov. 22, 2024
While there are multiple good ideas that one can make use of, the reality of the situation is that to establish truth, one needs empirical evidence that can be subjected to the rigor of examination from different perspectives. So far, evolution has stood the assault of different examinations just as experimentation with fire and electricity have provided countless moments of persuasion related to good and bad uses. However, in some instances, the standard rule of thumb is to have some math formula in your shirt pocket which you can readily reach for in order to support your observations and conclusions. If none is available for a context where mathematics alone may be the dominant requirement for validation, your claims will probably be denied, spoken of in quiet with similarly-minded colleagues, or receive some type of dismissiveness... if not negativity. Such a statement is a breakwater against the tide of those whose ability to articulate forcibly and convincingly with a daunting proclivity for language are permitted to take center stage among those whose reliance on the sometimes used esoteric mathematics as an argumentative de jure (in this case, an assumed Natural law that makes having a math equation all the more compelling as a truth and defensible right of way). A case in point is the easily seen recurring pattern-of-three in particle physics. Ask a physicist why, and they may reach for some speculative metaphysics such as western religion, or some eastern spirituality. However, to be fair, it is anyone's guess in the present era of investigation. We simply don't know.
The topic of "Evolutionary Psycho-dynamics" is defined either without the characteristics of emotion and personality, or with them because the term "psychology" for some readers is defined in terms of the whole of the human mind which includes all of its associated behavior applied to an individual. While "Psychology" as its name implies a study of the mind, its previous cul de sacs of investigation led many of the past and most of the present researchers to include various perceptions of behavior that they claim to be directly attributable to mental processes. In other words, simply studying the mind as an artefact of the brain was not very profitable for those whose own egos and emotions longed for a greater place, position and overall realization of importance. However, unless we use some type of Anthropomorphic application to the term Evolution, whereby it is seen as a person, then the ideas of emotion, personality and behavior will require a bit of a stretch in one's imagination... which can be musefully fun in some circumstances of discussion. The distinction between Evolution and Psycho-dynamics is necessary in order to avoid misguided assumptions and conclusions of a person's representation of "Psycho-Dynamics" in Evolutionary terms. Focusing on a particular aspect of cognitive activity can be viewed in terms of one humanistic interests, or as a type of mechanical-like activity whose use may become attached with characteristics of one's personality, emotions and behavior in a given place and time in history.
It should be noted that the ideas of "Psycho-statics" and "Psycho-idling" do not typically enter into a juxtaposed appearance for most philosophical discussions of the mind as a malleable vehicle traversing an Evolutionary time. However, the reader should themselves be observant that the word "dynamics" means movement, whereby "Static" means non-movement and "idling" means potential movement. Such a 3-tier type of association needs to be recognized as metaphors referring to different types of Evolutionary events to explain digressions, stops/starts, reverses, accelerations, etc... And yes, I do acknowledge the similarity to vehicle behavior which goes along with the notion that all of life are mere different models of vehicles which transport the item called DNA, if not all of the macro-molecules... and these are vehicles for atomic particles which themselves may be vehicles for that which may be more fundamental and "needs a lift" like a hitchhiker sticking their thumb out or waving to a passerby.
When it comes to describing a reason for the recurrence of dualities in psychology, you might be met with various suppositions involving some ancient philosophy such as the Western civilizations mind/body conventionality, or the Ancient Chinese perspective involving the Yin and Yang concept that some readers might deny as being a duality or dichotomy in terms of opposites and emphasize a framing of them as complements... and yet do not step back and see that dualistic complements (or spelled "compliments") and dualistic conflicts are part of the overall... let us say "spectrum" of dualities. However which way you wish to cast an action, statement or activity of some pairing, the labeling does not alter the underlying presence.
And though I have noted that the recurring disposition of Psychology (and Mathematics) to use dualities is problematic, it should be stated that most practitioners of those subjects may not even be aware they are deeply steeped in such an environment or that the presence of such is problematic for humanity. We have not to do but forgive them for their ignorance and point out why it is thought that humanity may well have the underlying potentiality to develop a third consciousness, if it hasn't already begun to exhibit signs thereof. As a preliminary, and not meant to be viewed as a stated truth or law, let us assume that those throughout history who have shown a penchant for "threeness" in some manner, are those who are experiencing a transitional effect with respect to the predominant interest in their life, but that such an interest does not represent some necessity to be exhibited. In any respect, without knowing how to confidently point to what a 3rd consciousness entails, we are left with a tentative guesswork that can be modified as we gather more understanding.
It should stand as a reasonable consideration that because humanity has and is a part of an Evolutionary trek with respect to all aspects of its earliest biological beginnings to its later anatomy, that the concept of consciousness is tied to our cognitive heritage as well. Such a view is not difficult to understand or even be overly concerned about. However, problems arise in the discussion of consciousness and our humanity in our efforts to decipher the origin of consciousness as a tell-tale indication of our humanity. With this said let me also reference whatever consciousness (if any) we want to describe to other animals or even all life forms, it is a consciousness relative to that in question. A human consciousness is thus a human consciousness, an ape's consciousness is thus an Ape's consciousness, and a bird's consciousness is a bird's consciousness. Similarly, no one would argue that the consciousness of a god is to be distinguished as a separate category.
And yet, what of earlier types of what we might call as pre-cursor models of present day humanity such as Cro-magnons and Neanderthals? Did they have a consciousness similar to present day humans or do we assign their consciousness the same as we assign them their positions in the trail of humanity? More to the point, perhaps, is why we would want to think of them as being different than we of today in terms of consciousness? Knowledge and experience yes, but having a consciousness that was respectively different? And here is where we can get caught up in the conundrum of trying to determine what is and what isn't meant by the word "consciousness", and even more importantly for some readers, is why I am addressing the issue when I first began the topic for the present Psycho-dynamic series by referencing dualities. To answer such questions I simply need to state that a recurrent theme in thinking may well be tied a type of consciousness just as we might describe an overall kind of thinking references a kind of consciousness, but that consciousness may not be dependent on all types of thinking a life form is capable, and in the case of life forms without a brain, their consciousness has other requirements which animals may not be required to have.
However, we need to distinguish Consciousness, from a Conscience, and from Conscientiousness, even though all of them may in some way overlap. Conscientiousness might well be viewed as a thoughtful form of consciousness which is an interactive form of simply being aware called a Conscience.
- To be conscious is simply to be aware. (All life forms have this... No intentionality is involved.)
- To be conscientious is to be thoughtfully aware. (Such as Parental and sibling concerns, but not limited to familial concerns... "Potentional" intentionality. Being thoughtfully aware does not automatically imply purposive action or activity.)
- To have a consciousness is to be interactively aware... Intentionality. This is often confused with the efforts of those striving to provide a description and definition to some idea/ideal of loftedness beyond a norm and reached by some arduous application of behavior (typically denial but can also be a currency of over-indulgence such as that seen in some sports to reach a "zone")... and in some cases a required use of mediation (with or without a mantra or specialized posture/posturing) and /or selflessness which involves some proposed state of non-duality.
Definitions found in dictionaries tend to overlap the foregoing three items. I have separated them into gradations. Doing so may help some readers grasp the notion that consciousness can be viewed as having three distinctions, much in the fashion in which we differentiate the 3 Germ layers. While we collectively call them Germ layers and individually label them with a similar referencing, those who study them can articulate developmental differences:
In order to take advantage of our "potentiation" (synergy between the three models of conscious labeling) from which a 3rd consciousness can be derived, we need to revamp our definitions in order to see our present human selves in a new light. A simple analogy is to look back in history to see how humanity's fate might well have been different if it did not adopt a new perception involving the Earth and Sun. Imagine if you will the time line of progress that may have been missed if humanity adopted the religious view that the Sun revolves around the Earth, whereby all ideas had to conform and confirm this inaccuracy. Or how about if Germ theory was never adopted nor the idea of a triplet code for DNA. And what if the idea that Atoms are indivisible had been made into a law that was punishable by death to anyone saying otherwise? However, it is not to say that the path humanity is presently on is not a dead end because it pursues ideas, practices and laws which are not conducive to a long-term viability which may require changes in direction, but those changes have not or will not be taken because the system of Institutions now in place are stubborn mules to change, and the publics of the world do not collectively react to bad circumstances such as the very many bad religious, political, corporate and small business leaderships and ideas? Whereas it is easy to see what can happen to a coach who fails to deliver a winning season, the fact that all of humanity is failing to deliver a winning season for its future viability goes unpunished, because there are so many rotten leaderships and followers.
Who polices and enforces the wrong doing of so many leaderships who make the rules? Likewise, how does the public punish a system of Psychology for what I believe to be a less viable direction in teaching and clinical practice then is possible to achieve? What good is pointing out a new bridge to cross if everyone is afraid of falling into some crevasse alternatively described according to those leaderships in Institutions who are most comfortable sitting along a parade route they themselves are the main attractions in because they have claimed a spot by erecting positions of desired vantage points? (Much like people in the public who place chairs at a spot as if to do so stakes a lawful claim on a public sidewalk. It is the same type of single-minded self-centeredness that all officials use from time to time and is accepted by the public as a given, as if it were a law simply because leaderships say so and call it an "Industry standard", as if to protect themselves from the acts of their own greed at the expense of anyone who gets in their way; and all other leaderships accept such a practice because they too utilize their own variation thereof.
We have a problem. It not only exists in the practices and teaching of Psychology, but also Mathematics and Religion, to name but three Institutions. Because the tools of their individual trades have been created, tested and altered according to embraced standards over long periods of time that the whole of society kow-tows to like indentured servants; what do we do in an effort to get them to subscribe to a new developmental perspective if they can not grasp that a potential exists beyond the confines of their individual and collectively supportive philosophies? How do we get a thousand year-old institution to make a turn while it sits in a soapbox derby cart when its steering is connected to a series of cables affixed in a state of duality whose alternating penchants cause it to veer by over-steering or under-steering? And even though each Institution has its own valuation of a middle ground or centrality, there remains a front-end alignment problem which they invariably try to correct by compensations which require more compensations to correct those and then again, and again and again, until the happy medium is due to the compilation of multiple dichotomies they become mired in. And instead of wanting to create a new ideological orientation, they instead patch the pot-holed road and blame the mess on other than themselves.
The following representations of the Geologic time scale are taken from the Britannica. Within the time scale occurs not only biological evolution, but the evolutionary development of humanity and the human type of consciousness. Our biology is part of a scale even if we at present only have a rudimentary understanding and have no comparable illustration to the scaled divisions found in geology. So too is the development of the brain and along with it the type of conscience awareness which accompanies different types of biology as an emergent property, that may at present be called as such for want of a better description. The point is, we have no problem in thinking in terms of scaled development, but lack the incentive to think in such terms, much less look for such a scenario occurring in a topic labeled consciousness. The later some property is thought to arrive on the biological scene, the less information is though to accompany it, much like the less of a history a child has when compared to an older person such as an adult.
And even though biology has been around for billions of years, we do not see the intricacy... the calculus of description for any biological or evolutionary topic. Thus one must ask if there is less to observe in biology which limits what can be described, or is it the nature in which biological research is being conducted? Indeed, why do we find such a parsimony of information in the Periodic Table of Elements and the study of Particle physics? The activity of complicating information with the use of semantics and mathematics does not increase its volume as if to be use to overwhelm someone into thinking they are in the presence of an unassailable truth.
While discussing the presence of dualities and the topic of consciousness might seem to some to be separate issues, and they are in some contexts, in the present discussion of evolutionary development of the mind where both dualities and the idea of consciousness come to the forefront of inspection, I want to avoid jumping onto the bandwagon of trying to integrated personality and developmental milestones associated with a person's life, though some may consider that such milestones can be viewed as a generalization... a microcosm of the developmental trek the biology of humanity has experienced. I also want to avoid using an association with color such as seen in the idea of Ken Wilber's view of consciousness, though it should be noted that he does however cite 3 levels of consciousness and the notion of 3-proportioned valuation (25-50-25 rule) is sometimes used as seen here: Ken Wilber's Level of Consciousness. It is also interesting that the 3rd level is being described as that which "...are beyond what most human beings will ever experience and are rarely seen in human affairs, much less understood".(Note that the word "level" is inter-changeably used along with stage and altitude.)
Please note that while the page from which the following image is taken speaks of 12 stages of Consciousness, the table itself is not designated with the word "consciousnes". It describes Altitudes of Human development in which (we can assume) the development of consciousness occurs in different formulas of expression.
Generally speaking, Consciousness is thought to be embedded in human behavior and not seen as a system of monitoring it. It is thought of as an emergent property, like smell or sound or a felt sensation necessitated by the physiology to which it is ascribed and not viewed as a separate entity which establishes a symbiotic relationship in different ways in different eras, whereby one era such as the Ancient Greeks could experience a type of mental illness where the supposed voices of gods were heard and another place and time with a different person or public they came to identify more with an animal instead of lofted items of observation such as clouds, mountain tops, stars, birds, etc...
Using an associated spectrum of color is much in the manner of using Astrology constructed in the manner of a spectrum that reminds me of a retailer trying to provide a one-stop shopping experience of variety in order to attract the interests of different would-be customers... that is, anything to make a sale.
Whereas some retailers would prefer to have a single item to deal with for inventory, even luxury items are now required to have multiple variations if the seller wants to increase their income from multiple sales due to the variety of interests which they are confronted with and the need to secure a steady income, though perhaps in some rare situations enough money or other asset can be achieved by a single sale that no other sale need take place. However, because the human mind is awash with different variations and those variations typically are of a common scenario of understanding and interest, it is easy to understand by ideas on consciousness, love, sex, money, etc., have multiple considerations attached to them, while also providing the view that their exists that which only a few will every achieve.
In short, ideas are products and those advocating them are marketers. Some are better than others at developing a marketing strategy. My strategy for supplying the idea of a 3rd consciousness is to provide you with the information which already exists in biology, and tie that information to the development of the human mind. Simply put, let me state it again, if we can see a recurring 1- 2- 3 developmental scenario at different milestones of biological development from which humanity has sprung, then the possibility that consciousness may also exhibit a 1-2-3 developmental trend is not a stretch of the imagination, though stretches of the imagination do occur when descriptions of consciousness are attempted in an effort to create a product which can be sold to generate an income... similar to the nonsense seen in religion and Eastern philosophy... as well as politics, the stock market and multiple subjects which are forced upon the public.
If consciousness does develop along a 1-2-3 sequence, then the presence of a dominant usage of duality may well signal the human mind is stuck in the second level, and that this world-view orientation is an expectation; then we as a species have a serious problem confronting our evolutionary state. While one may claim that this state of affairs is a necessity of the overall Evolutionary chain of being and nothing needs to be done since consciousness will eventually find its way onto land, there is the need to consider that the current development is being suppressed by an artificially created active Institutional effort to perpetuate the second stage of consciousness by teaching the use of dichotomy and enforcing a perpetuation of the usage as seen by the presence of duality in Psychology, Mathematics, Computer language, and elsewhere.
The use of dichotomies is a cognitive activity that has not been adequately addressed in Evolutionary terms. Simply listing various dualities which have occurred in history does not explain their retention. Calling them a natural phenomena of human perception organized by its underlying physiology does not then also explain why there is an absence of this same modeling technique when we cite the presence of multiple trialities occurring human anatomy. If our underlying biology influences ideological constructs in twos, then why not threes as well? Why is there a differentiation to be noted? Whereas in the so-called Natural order of things humans pass through multiple "two" stages of development, even utilizing a multiplicity of twoness in cell division, why then does not a trichotomization of mind come to the forefront and become exercised in Psychology, Mathematics and Computer language, if in the Natural order of enumeration, the 3 exceeds the 2 unless something is preventing the 3 stage to fully develop and emerge?
If we are entering into a respective 3rd Trimester of human consciousness, though attempts are being made to have it be exhibited in the form of some quantum computer-based Artificial Intelligence because the biological model is being suppressed by duality-wielding institutions such as Psychology, Mathematics, politics, Religion, Eastern philosophy, Sports, Economics, Law/Legislation, etc., must those voicing support for a human-based realization of a "next-stage" of evolution become violent against existing Institutions and force them to adopt a philosophy of Trichotomization?Throughout history we find individuals from within their respective genre of inserest(s) who speak of stages of development. Though differently labeled, variables of duality are often cited as well as that which is beyond some purported struggle or earlier realization of achievement that was itself at one time the sought for externality to exceed what was then thought to be the highest achievement which supported the possibility, the potential for yet another step beyond that which was being realized. Like a primitive who developed the number 1 and yet also developed the notion of a higher potentiality that was later identified and labeled number 2... along which was proposed yet a higher possibility from it. In many ways in many moments of history in many different languages we pay witness to the recurring cognitive activity of humanity paying reference to that "something, someone, someplace" to be achieved... if only someone does this or that; depending on whose views are used to construct the proposed path towards what some claim to be Enlightenment, Nirvana, or some final position of "Higherness"; perhaps nothing more than the sentimentality of an ape-like creature retaining a fondness of memory for an earlier age of living high in the canopy of trees.
If not a 3rd consciousness, what does another use to describe the same ideological orientation we can find being intimated or articulated by different people in different eras under widely differering activities? Why do they all share the same image of that which is thought to exist beyond and may thus denote it as some sort of magical, mystical, spiritual, metaphysical objective, unless they prefer some notion of tangibility so as to give the impression they have a greater knowledge of this "something there" and therefore should be viewed in a light of more distinction? Do you prefer to call it an New Age, or Heaven, or an Age of Artificial Intelligence... a term more conducive to the present era and yet may well be replaced by that which is more suited to a later age but is a term that does not yet exist?
If you are one who recognizes some supposed Higher stage waiting for humanity, what words and sequencing of ideas will you rely on? Let us take a short look at one such effort prior to the development of Sociology as a Research discipline. The idea of a "Sociology" was viewed by some as an achievable "next stage" in human contemplated understanding and articulation, but is widely accepted today (like so very many other institutionalized subjects) as having fallen far short of that which others had hoped to prove to be a finally attained Revelation to propel Humanity into a greater age of realization:
Theories of stages (From: "religion, study of." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
Auguste Comte (1798–1857) is usually considered the founder of modern sociology. His general theory hinged substantially on a particular view of religion, and this view has somewhat influenced the sociology of religion since that time. In his Cours de philosophie positive (The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte) Comte expounded a naturalistic Positivism and sketched out the following stages in the evolution of thought. First, there is what he called the theological stage, in which events are explained by reference to supernatural beings; next, there is the metaphysical stage, in which more abstract unseen forces are invoked; finally, in the positivistic stage, men seek causes in a scientific and practical manner. To seek for scientific laws governing human morality and society is as necessary, in this view, as to search for those in physics and biology—hence Comte's role in advocating a science of society, namely sociology. Among the leading figures in the development of sociological theories were Spencer and Durkheim (see Anthropological approaches to the study of religion in the article).
A rather separate tradition was created by the German economic theorist Karl Marx (1818–83). A number of Marxists, notably Lenin (1870–1924) and K. Kautsky (1854–1938), have developed social interpretations of religion based on the theory of the class struggle. Whereas sociological functionalists posited the existence in a society of some religion or a substitute for it (Comte, incidentally, propounded a positivistic religion, somewhat in the spirit of the French Revolution), the Marxists implied the disappearance of religion in a classless society. Thus, in their view religion in man's primordial communist condition, at the dawn of the historical dialectic, reflects ignorance of natural causes, which are explained animistically. The formation of classes leads, through alienation, to a projection of the need for liberation from this world into the transcendental or heavenly sphere. Religion, both consciously and unconsciously, thus becomes an instrument of exploitation. In the words of the young Marx, religion is “the generalized theory of the world . . . , its logic in popular form.” The modern intellectualist accounts of religion, tending to ignore the rituals, experiences, and institutions but concentrating rather on the doctrines and myths, have proved something of a problem for later Marxist applications of their theory. Since the theory was a product of a rather early and unsophisticated stage of theorizing about religion, it was not adapted particularly well to deal with other cultures—hence a considerable debate in modern China on the status of Chinese religion in the light of Marxism, some holding that Marx's critique did not, for example, fit Buddhism.
After thousands of years and different interpretations from sincere and well-intentioned individuals, every single religion and spiritual philosophy from the East have failed to deliver humanity into a greater Age of realization. Instead, we are confronted by different approaches to the explication and illustration of duality which the human mind is stuck in. But so have the institutions of Psychology, Mathematics, Politics and Economics. Each of them separately and collectively have subjected humanity to a requirement of living in a society that treats everyone as an indentured servant that must adopt a world-view of dichotomization, or be ostracized like Lazarus who exists with the hope of a Saviour whose unrealized Nom de Plume is Trichotomization... for want of a better name.
Yet, this is in no way to imply a new and better age of humanity will automatically come to the fore simply because we adopt a belief, however accurate it might well be. There are so many Institutions plying trades involving dichotomy that it will likely take multiple generations to weed out the most dangerous ones which perpetuate the troubles of society. And this too is a problem because it permits shysters to impose ludicrous ideological applications for the purpose of making a buck or engaging in the multifarious nature of manipulation. Millions are involved in illicit affairs under the guise and protections afforded by accepted legalities exercised by governments, religions and commerce. All of which were at one time thought to provide a means to assist humanity to reach its better potentials. Where slavery was once thought a great evil, it has now been replaced by the evil of a disparate equality promoted by leaderships who think they are deserving of unequalized entitlements. And yet we agree that things in human society are better, if only marginally so. However the greater problem rests in how to decide what is meant by peace? What is meant by an equal distribution of wealth? What is meant as fairness and the greater right?
The idea of a New Age to be ushered in for a greater humanity is a long standing ideal sometimes referred to as millennialism, but the problem is that far too often the greater ideal is defined in terms of some religious notion, even though it is one of the greater evils which perpetuate a world view involving various dichotomies.
Page Initiated: Friday, 17th January, 2025... 9:07 AMMillennialism, also called millenarianism or chiliasm.
More broadly defined, it is a cross-cultural concept grounded in the expectation of a time of supernatural peace and abundance on earth.
Less broadly defined, it is the belief, expressed in the book of Revelation to John, the last book of the New Testament, that Christ will establish a 1,000-year reign of the saints on earth (the millennium) before the Last Judgment.
Taken out of the context of religion, it is sometimes referred to as a New Age, or Age of Enlightenment, or even Age of Aquarius.
In religious terms, Millennialism offers a version of the fundamental eschatological belief that at the end of time (the "End," or "Endtime") God will judge the living and the resurrected dead. This belief in ultimate divine justice provides a rationale for theodicy, the reconciliation of God's goodness with the existence of evil in the world. In providing solace for the suffering of countless generations of believers—Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists—millennialism has had immense appeal in every age. Although its name comes from the 1,000-year period mentioned in the Revelation to John, millennialism is primarily concerned with the earthly nature of the coming “new world.” This radical transformation promises an end to existing institutions of power and, therefore, infuses millennial beliefs with a revolutionary quality that threatens those in authority.
The key determinant of millennialism's impact on society is timing. As long as the day of redemption is yet to come, millennial hopes console the suffering and inspire patience and political quiescence. Driven by a sense of imminence, however, believers in apocalyptic millennialism can become disruptive and even revolt against the sociopolitical order in an attempt to bring about the promised kingdom of peace. Thus, apocalyptic millennialism has been a powerful and volatile catalyst throughout the ages. No matter how often apocalyptic beliefs have proved wrong and no matter how much chaos has been wrought by millennial efforts to establish God's kingdom on earth, apocalyptic expectations are repeatedly revived. From the Jewish revolts against Rome in the 1st and 2nd centuries, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, to the Taiping Rebellion in the 19th century, which led to 20–35 million deaths, such movements tend to self-destruct in spectacular fashion. For all the costly failures, however, the appeal of millennialism remains, and generation after generation of devotees have sought the chimerical kingdom. ("millennialism." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
Initial Posting: Tuesday, 21st January, 2025... 10:50 AM