(New Instrument of Threes)
- page twenty four -
(The Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org
Despite all my, let me say, "reservations" about religion, I do find articles written by professed adherents to one or another religion or some labeled esoteric perspective, who are investigating phenomena not being looked at by those engaged in what is otherwise denoted as "serious" science in terms of laboratory analysis. The problem is not their research, but their application without being tested. But many ideas are difficult to test in a laboratory in terms of weighing and measuring on an objective scale as one does when weighing fruits or vegetables.
For example, how do we weigh and measure a concept such as "god"? The results always end up with a subjective answer. Additionally, what if everyone in a given group are predisposed to a different god, and those claiming not to believe in a god, use this belief as a substitute god? Is everyone right, partially right, or wrong? Is the entire process of thinking about the concept of god entirely wrong itself? Is it a manifested "shadow" of a primitive primate brain? Is a disbelief in a god merely a simplistic process of contrariness of a brain exhibiting the same primivity which is inclined towards creating dichotomies... and even its earliest forms of triadic structures incorporate an inclination towards a lop-sidedness because two of a set-of-three are based on opposition?
Whereas some of the information gathered by those engaged in "eclectic" research may be relegated to a "laboratory" which is a forum of like-minded individuals, the forum is not enlarged to ask the opinions of those from different perspectives. For example, internet discussion forums are rarely if ever engaged in seeking out responses from alternative perspectives. They prefer to act as groups which huddle around a campfire telling the tales of their perspective by which they are intoxicated into a stuporous agreement that their view is the greater truth. Yet, while they pat themselves on the back in congratulating one another for an intellectual job well-done, are they smart enough to devise a means of testability? Or are they satisfied that their philosophical belief appears to them as being a greater philosophical standard of truth compared to yet another standard of believed in philosophical truth?
Truth that is weighed, and measured by subjective belief based on stated personal experiences is like the created "safe zone" of children playing a game of chase-n-tag. Whereas some children create a particular landmark position as a specific safety zone that provides a momentary respite, a sanctuary, a fortress from being tagged in a game of chase (so that one can catch their breath), the position of the safe zone can also be arbitrarily applied in given instances by given individuals. Adults do the same thing with their beliefs. So called supportive "evidence" about whether or not one has been "tagged" is frequently argued over... until one either gives in or gives up the game to find another one with those whom their particular views of an arbitrarily applied safe zone finds acceptance.
"Tagging" someone in their belief is to "capture" (dispel) their mind while it is "running" (working) and have one's own be the dominant perspective. Likewise, to "tag" someone while they are physically running around is to capture them and make them subservient to one's authority labeled as the chaser. The parallels between adult active mental behavior and that which occurred in childhood as physically active behavioral forms are directly linked.
Here's a poem I wrote decades ago which makes a fanciful distinction between another adult and childhood parallel:
|
I said: "All The Way" that's how far I wanted her to go she had nothing else to say except: "I don't think so." As I kissed her wet lips which stood for moments unrevealed because a stepping stone is each kiss, to a treasure chest brimly filled. I said there's nothing to be afraid of that I've done it before her eyes spoke of such innocent love I just wanted to hear more. We'll take one step at a time there's no need to look down everything will be fine and we'll both exclaim a pleased sound. I took her by the hand leading her slowly to the place and with a smile on my face, I said everything will be grand. I'm a year older with more experience in life than she my world challenges are much bolder she thinks my ideas are somewhat risky. I sweetly nudged her to get on top as her smile quivered to me below I told her not to stop, that I loved her deeply so. She closed her eyes and held her breath until she realized, she hadn't done it yet. I impatiently told her to hurry up that we haven't got all day she frowned and said she had enough, I apologized and asked her to stay. When the next thing I knew, she was asking: "How did I do?" I'm six years old, she's five, she had finally slid down the slide! |
I wasn't trying to be vulgar when I wrote the poem. I saw a humorous parallel between going down a slide and adult sexual behavior. But many activities that took place in childhood are simply recreated in the behaviors of adulthood. Try as we might to rationalize the uses and abuses of such circumstances, they nonetheless exist in the intellectual games adults play. Not only do adult minds recreate "adulterized" versions of childhood "smartness", but also childhood naivete' and stupidity' as well. The following examples are a very small sampling of what is perceived to be stupidity:
 |
 |
As you can see above, Danae has this thing about what she considers stupid people. But what about igmos (ignoramuses)?
Igmo people should be required to wear signs that just say "I'm an igmo". That way you wouldn't rely on them. You wouldn't ask them anything. It would be like "Excuse me...oops, never mind. I didn't see your sign."
For example, a friend of mine was moving. Their house was full of boxes and there was a moving truck in the driveway. A neighbor comes over and says "Hey, you moving?" "Nope, we just pack up our stuff up once or twice a month to see how many boxes it takes. Here's your sign."
Last summer, a buddy of mine went fishing. She was returning to the car with a stringer of salmon. An person along the path says "You catch all them fish?" "No, I talked them into surrendering. Here's your sign."
My sister was traveling and got a flat tire. She pulled into the service station, the attendant walks out, looks at her, and she SWEARS he said "Tire go flat?" "No, I was just driving along and those other three just swelled up on me. Here's your sign."
There was a show about shark bite suits on the Discovery Channel. The inventor was about to get into a tank of hungry sharks to test his suit. He asks the reporter if he wants to put one on and join him. He does. "Well, okay, but hold my sign. I don't want to loose it."
We were trying to sell a car about a year ago. A guy came over and drove the car for about 30 minutes. We get back to the house, he gets out of the car and looks it over closely. Then he reaches down and grabs the exhaust pipe and says "Damn, that's hot." See? If he been wearing his sign, we could have stopped him!
 |
 |
However, if the researcher's only interest is in promoting a religion, religious belief, or singular perspective other than these, regardless of what it is... which may or may not be anti-pode (contradiction) of what they think is the dominant belief of the community at large; they are not open to alternative considerations. In other words, they may convince themselves they are trying to be objective and open-minded, but they are... only in as much as the conclusions revolve around a singular interest.
I see religion as just another species of mental animal. For example, let us say all the different religions are birds. They are different birds with individual plumage, territories, mating rituals, nesting habits, flight patterns, etc. And like birds, they have their occasional gatherings with internal arguments, pecking order arrangements, etc... But they are nonetheless birds. They all arose from a more primitive past... Some think it is a past of dinosaurs, others think reptiles, and still others are inclined towards some Johnathan Livingston Seagull variation of beginning and a potential endlessness.
Let us further say that different birds think differently, though we call all of them birds. Like humans, they exist in most places and develop a brain functioning that has adapted to the place it inhabits. It is difficult to "rewire" the brain of a bird that lives in one climate and expect it to live in an environment to which it and its like-minded other "bird-brains", have come to claim as their niche. For example, it would be difficult for a penguin to live in a desert... even though it would be difficult for many birds to do so. Humans, like birds, develop their own "pecking order" where some individuals are considered to be what has been sometimes referred to as a "pillar of society". The usage of such a word, like all words when used to compare, have some origin. Frequently, the origin is in the past. However, it may be of interest for some if I should note that the idea of "pillars" may have been a common metaphor established long before the Novum Organum.
See: Bible passages about Cosmology
(An early twentieth century conceptualization)
The Ancient Hebrew Conception of the UniverseTo illustrate the account of Creation and the Flood
National Center for Science Education: Ancient Hebrew Cosmology
The above sketch is a description which may have even predated the development of using columns in architecture. The columns in the bottom sketch remind me of the elephant legs misinterpreted as tree trunks by one of the blind men in the story about the blind man and the elephant. The idea had to come from somewhere.
Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com