The levels of organization concept is a basic paradigm of the
system that we use to present the human mind:

See the new 32 stage levels of organization model below
created August 11th 2011  Click newlevels below for more
details: (Note 16 super levels and 32 sublevels)

Dynamos-energy, thermodynamics -1
Chaos-flux, energy flow, chaos theory-2
Logos-emergence, systems, systems theory-3
Synos-complexity, cosmogenesis, complexity theory-4

Orthos-M Theory, constants, new universes-5
Schizos, black holes, holographic universe, big bang-6
Mitos M theory, branes and strings-7
Chromos, quantum mechanics, waves-8

Electros-electrons, quarks, particle physics-9
Protos--protons, atomic nuclei-10
Atomos--atoms, elements   CHEMISTRY  periodic table-11

Zymos-enzymes, tranfer RNA-14
Somos-messenger RNA Ribosomes-15
Genos-chromosomes DNA-16


Neuros-organ systems-21
Psychos--organs, organisms   PSYCHOLOGY  learning-22
Ethnos--populations, tribes  ANTHROPOLOGY words-23
Polisos--community, city, SOCIOLOGY  writing, civilization-24

Metros-ecosystem, machines,TECHNOLOGY printing-25
Anemos--biosphere, radios, ELECTRONICS, broadcasts-26
Geos--planets, computers  DATA SYSTEMS-27
Helios--solar systems, robots, ROBOTICS, Internet, web-28

Astros--star clusters, androids, Sci Fi, virtual reality-29
Galactos--galaxies, elves, FANTASY, fantasy worlds-30
Megalos--supergls, titans, MYTHOLOGY, mythic worlds-31
Ouranos--universes, gods, THEOLOGY, generic creation-32
But consider changing this with particles as the first level of
organization building up through the gods with string theory
as the final product?

For the development of this levels of organization concept,
consider the following references, Gardner B. Moment,
General Zoology, Houghton Mifflin, 1958, pp. 11 thru 40, we
are calling the subatomic level, Protos, the atomic, Atomos,
the molecular, Zymos, the cellular, Cytos, the multicellular,
Psychos, and the population level, Ethnos.  We are adding
the Electros and other levels for organization below the
subatomic.  Refer also to Ervin Laszlo, The Systems View of
the World, George Braziller, 1972. We have added in
organization of the biotic community (Demos), ecosystem
(Technos), biosphere (Anemos), planet (Geos), solar system
(Helios), star clusters (Astros), galaxy (Galactos),
super-galaxy (Megalos), and universe (Ouranos). Consider
also Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous idea, Simon and
Schuster, 1995, pp. 335 - 521, at the Bios level the gene
rules, at the Pschos level, it is the remembered meme, at the
Ethnos, the spoken meme, Polisos is the written, Metros is
the printed, Anemos is electronically broadcast, Geos is in
computer form, Helios is internet and web, Astros is memes
at the level of virtual reality of the science fiction variety,  
Galactos is at the level of fantasy, Megalos, of myth, and
Ouranos, of theology.  We have the notion of something self
perpetuating using the Darwinian mechanism discussed in
Dennett and in Daniel R. Brooks and E. O. Wiley, Evolution
as Entropy, U of Chicago, 1986, but perpetuating in
hyperspace, see Michio Kaku, Hyperspace, Oxford, 1994.

Consider placing these levels of organization within the
following framework:

cause         Source       ground

SELF              transcendent           CORE

conservation                purpose
individual                                           collective
FLUX Free     Separate   LAW            Order      Mixed FLUX
individual                                          collective                      
form            Result       sameness   

COVERING         measurement       ASSEMBLY

action          Perform     development                    

This model is a development of the mandalas presented in
Jung, see Joseph Campbell, The Portable Jung, Penguin,
1971, p. 382, and xxviii, sensation = result,  thinking =
separate, intuition = source, feeling = mixed and Erich
Fromm, Man for Himself, Fawcett Premier, 1947, Self = hot,
fast (fast is the sympathetic nervous system with emphasis
on the motor oriented frontal lobes), Assembly = cold, slow
(slow is the parasympathetic nervous system with emphasis
on the sensation oriented posterior lobes of the brain),  
Covering is Dry and Strong (the left, fact oriented
hemisphere of the brain that controls the stronger right
hand), Core is Wet and Weak (the weaker left hand and its
right hemisphere of the cerebrum).  The basis of our model is
a tetrahedron of four faces: Earth (Result), Fire (Free), Water
(Mix), and Air (Ideal) with four vertexes opposite the faces:
Heaven (Source), Wood (Order), Salt (Separate) and Dust
(Perform), with six sides of Cold (Assembly) to hot (Self),
Framework (Law) to Storm (Flux), and Dry (Covering) to
Moist (Core).  This tetrahedron converts into a cube and
octahedron, finally to a buried cube-octahedron pyramid, and
it cuts open to make a wheel centered variously on the Self,
or Law face of the cube, generating the mandala seen above
and on Campbell (Jung) op. cit., pp. xxviii, and 382.

Brain Stem                   Right                             Brain Stem
Flux                              Core                              Flux

Right Frontal Lobe                    Right Parietal Association

Self                              Law                               Assembly
Frontal                       Cerebral                                  POT

Left Frontal Lobe                        Left Parietal Association
Flux                             Covering                                Flux
Brain Stem                                                             Brain Stem

We have shown elsewhere,  what we are calling COVERING
tends to be fact oriented operations of the LEFT

what we are calling CORE tends to be meaning oriented
operations of the RIGHT CEREBRAL HEMISPHERE. What
we are calling SELF tends to be executive functions of the
FRONTAL LOBES and CINGULATE areas and what we are
calling ASSEMBLY tends to be association area driven
functions in the POT, the Parietal, Occipital, Temporal lobe
association areas.  What we are calling FLUX tends to be
brain stem operations involving the reticulate system and the
autonomic nervous systems and what we are calling LAW
tends to be higher cerebral activities involving the cerebral
association areas, hippocampus, and striated bodies.

It is understood that the brain structures processing the data
are themselves organized at a level of organization.  Thus,
the obvious fact that any brain structure must have an
PHYSIOS, BIOS, GAMOS, that is energy, electrons, atoms,
molecules, cells, that fact is a subject in itself, implied, but
not discussed above.  We are not considering the
organization of the structure, but the organization of the data
processed by that structure.

It seems obvious that particles and atoms emerge from
thermodynamic relationships in energy and entropy, here
symbolized by FLUX.  These come together in complexes
called atoms and molecules that have a predictable pattern.  
This is symbolized by ASSEMBLY and measurement and
form.  COVERING represents the emergence of these
structures as surfaces, surfaces of cells, of sheets of cells,
thus tissues, etc..   These structures become more
individualized and develop their own gene, learned pattern,
cultural pattern, social law driven systems patterns.  Thus,
we see the movement from Results of natural selection
toward models(Ideal), purposes and law driven systems
invented by social systems, now organized in printed,
electronic, computer system, and Internet system derived
communication complexes (collective).  Whether real or not,
fantasy, myth, and theology (CORE) point to larger systems
and the images tend to be right cerebral hemisphere

The scientific approach to all of this is based on the laws of
thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and relativity, as
expressed through the systems functions that emerge at
higher and higher levels of organization.  But, what if there is
order at the subquantum level.  What if the monads
discussed by Leibniz in his monadology really did exist at a
subquantum level?  Consider the fact that theology and
idealism themselves will sort out on this flattened
octahedron, cube that we are using to sort out brain
functions and polarities.  For example:
cause          Source        ground
     (Dusanas, Vedanta)
SELF            transcendent          CODE
(Phenomenology) Ideal         (Scholasticism)
  conservation             purpose
individual                             collective     
FLUX  Free      Separate  LAW  Order        Mixed       FLUX
(Vitalism) individual          Result         collective       (Vitalism)
   form                        sameness
(Empiricism)                             (Socialism)
action             Perform    development
FLUX (Vitalism) (Art) vs. LAW (Linguistics) (Scholarship)
Source (Magic) (Dusanas) vs. Result (Science) (Materialism)
cause (ritual) vs. sameness (history)
conservation (philosophy) vs. development (journalism)
purpose (ethics) vs. action (craft)
form (psychology vs. ground (mythology)
collective (ideology) vs. individualism (logic)
transcendent (theology) vs. measurement (economics)
Free (Design)(Existentialism)vs. Order (Govern)(Rationalism)
Separate (Analysis) (Math) vs. Mixed (Dialectic) (Literature)

Source (Heaven) vs. Result (Earth)
Separate (Salt) vs. Mixed (Water)
Order (Wood) vs. Free (Fire)
Ideal (Air) vs. Perform (Dust or Life)
Four corners of a cube, eight sides of an octahedron
Six sides of a cube: SELF vs. ASSEMBLY
CORE (whole) vs. COVERING (Part)
FIXED (law) vs. FLUX (energy)
twelve edges of the cube:
sameness to variation              
conserve to develop
individual to collective
measure to transcend
form to ground
purpose to action

RIGHT HEMISPHERE of the cerebrum,  MYSTERY, to:

Shiva as flux (destroyer)

cause      Source      ground

Brahma as creative            Vishnu as infinite
The Infinite flux that makes the improbable
probable                The Form of the Good, the Neoplatonic
Pneuma=Soul                      Hen= One, Whole,
concentrated improbable    connection of all
conserved                     purpose
free individual separate  Nous=mind     order collective mix
Fixed Information
form                               homeostasis
Result (Natural System)
Quantum Mechanics              Relativity
Perform (Emergence)
action                             development


The Eight Faces of the Octahedron can contain a number of
trinities:  The Heaven or Source face: the Hindu Trinity of
Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva as the infinite flux that makes the
improbable probable.  The Ideal, or Air face: the Neoplatonic
Trinity of Hen, Nous, Pneuma as the trinity that defines the
Good.  The New Thought Trinity of Spirit, Law, and Body as
the trinity that defines analysis, or individual mind.  The
quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, relativity trinity as the
trinity that defines the Perform Face.   The trinity of part,
information system, and assembled complex as the trinity
that defines the Result face and the levels of organization of
nature.  This also appears as the Legislative (ASSEMBLY),
Executive (COVERING), and Judicial (LAW) trinity.  These
trines return to the larger whole as Sanga (ASSEMBLY),
Dharma (LAW), Buddha (CORE), or as Thesis
(ASSEMBLY), Antithesis (FLUX), Synthesis (CORE,
WHOLE).  The later trinity is the basis of Hegelian and
Marxist dialectic.  The Free face is defined by the three
gunas of Hindu philosophy, the pure spirit (Sattva), its flux,
and the material product (Tamas).

To what extent is this final truth, simply brain structure,
empty myth?  The point is that these types of relationships
are natural results of the triangulation of functions within the
brain.  Whether or not they actually exist in nature, the
tendency of the brain to bring divergent associations
together, thus sounds from the temporal lobe, tactile
impressions from the parietal, visual data from the occipital
lobe encourages the development of such abstractions.  For
example, let us start with visual data from the left occipital
lobe as our thesis, oppose it to sounds analyzed in the left
temporal, our antithesis, and some attempt to integrate this
data with spacial concepts in the parietal association area,
thus, our synthesis.  Here is a brain function dialectic!

Anterior Cerebrum                                     Posterior Cerebrum

FLUX (Shiva, destroyer)
cause      Source: Hindu Trinity      ground
(Brahma, creative improbable)(Vishnu, preserved)
SELF                 transcend    (endless) CORE
(Pneuma, soul)                               (Hen, one)        
conserve                                         purpose    
SPIRIT      Ideal: Neoplatonic Trinity     SYNTHESIS
SATTVA GUNA   of the Form of the Good     BUDDHA
(Nous, mind) DHARMA
Free  individual Separate      LAW    Order collective  Mix       
RAJAS GUNA                     JUDICIAL                 ANTITHESIS
form     Result: Natural Levels      homeostasis
COVERING            measure        SANGA/ ASSEMBLY
EXECUTIVE                                    LEGISLATIVE                       
BODY                                             THESIS

Anterior Cerebrum                   to             Posterior Cerebrum
Frontal Lobes   Left Central Sulcus, Left Parietal, Temporal
Motor Area                          Occipital Association    


above is a whole series of these trines moving across the
faces of our octahedron:

Source trinity: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva to
Result trinity: Legislative, Judicial, Executive

Ideal trinity: Hen, Nous, Pneuma to
Perform trinity: Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics,

Separate trinity:  Spirit, Law, Body
Mix trinity:  Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

Free trinity: Sattva Guna, Rajas Guna, Tamas Guna
Order trinity: Buddha, Dharma, Sanga        

Source:Infinte (Vishnu) flux (Shiva) makes the improbable
(Brahma) probable.

Result:  The improbable decays back to the probable,
according to the second law of thermodynamics, generating
energy dissipative structures (Executive), which compete in
Darwinian selection in developing energy conserving
systems (Judicial) that assemble in higher and higher levels
of organization (Legislative).

Ideal: Within the endless (Hen), there are universes
organized to various degrees (Nous).  Those universes that
are observed are those that sustain enough organization to
enable consciousness (Pneuma), this is the anthropic

Perform:  These organizations emerge from the principles of
Thermodynamics.  According to the first law, energy is
neither created nor destroyed, hence endures endlessly
(implying the existence of an infinite flux).  Where improbable
concentrations of energy occur, they will decay back to the
probable, creating energy dissipative structures.  These
structures emerge from particles and atoms arising from the
Quantum Mechanical generating one, two, and three
dimensional assemblages in Relativistic space time.

Separate:  Three separate systems of principles are
operating to govern these relationships: The principles
observed and measured by science (Body), the theoretical
principles developed by logic and mathematics (Law), and
the existentially inexistent realm of the phenomenological, of
the monad of Leibniz (Spirit).

Mix: The complement to this trinity is the old Hegelian
dialectic of Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis.  The given
public world is the Thesis.  The possible, the fantastic, is the
Antithesis.  The utter extension of this into the impossible is
the final Synthesis.  We have moved from Right Hemisphere
frontal (SPIRIT) to Left Hemisphere
Parietal-Occipital-Temporal association, and now we return
to Right Hemisphere (SYNTHESIS).

Free:  The three gunas of Hindu metaphysics are the pure
phenomenological Sattva, the active thermodynamic Rajas,
and the material Tamas.  These chart the attachment of the
phenomenological to the thermodynamic and the quantum.

Order:  If the trinity of the qunas attach the
phenomenological monad to the world, the trinity of the
Buddha releases it.  Having discovered that all self in the
world is actually only association and all stability is actually
only flux and all pleasure and wholeness is actually only
broken and suffering, the monad joins the assembly of those
who seek release (the Saga) that follow the law of virtue
(Dharma) and discover the deep core that releases all
suffering  (Buddha).  This completes our journey of the
tribes, the path from the right hemisphere to the left and back
to the right again.

Again, I ask the question, are we moving through the real
world, or only through our brain?  Where does the line
between brain and reality begin and end?  Who can answer
this question without entering the land of denial!

Still these models can be useful in understanding current
events.  The world is moving into a time when the electronic,
computer, Internet, and virtual reality emerge as new levels
of organization storing information: Electros, Astros, Synos,
Nymphos.  The old ways of organization, speech, writing,
printing (Anthros, Demos, Thermos) have generated old
ways of collective action that are in decay.  In the Middle
East, we see the remains of the old Babylonian, Persian,
Byzantine, Caliphate, Ottoman, Russian, British, French
imperial systems using the Internet and modern forms of
communication, but organized in the tribal, competitive, and
exploitative orientations that bring war and conflict.   Sadism
is in conflict with Masochism and the ancient past rises up in
modern dress.  It is a catastrophic synthesis of chaotic power
rising from the lowest levels of organization with systems
mechanisms and communication utilizing the very highest.

Consider the following model:
Source: Romantic Temper (Gothic, Feudal)
Productive Orientation (Ecological)
variation                                   ground
CONCENTRATION  transcend   CONNECTION         
INFINITESIMAL                            INFINITE
conserve                                 purpose
Model: Classical Temper
Refining Orientation (Aristocratic)  
Set Point (Thermostat, Ideal)
Free: DaDa Temper       LAW                Mix: Eclectic Temper
Exploitative Orientation                          Glutinous Orientation
(Tribal, Warlike)                                     (Imperial, Mercantile)
Natural Selection (Extinction)         Recombination, gene
pool               individual                                  collective
Separate: Impressionist temper      Order: Baroque temper
Segregating/Hoarding                     Receptive Orientation
Orientation (Debate, Local)          Absolutism (Decree, Global)
Analysis of Input               Feedback Mechanism
Result: Realistic, Naturalistic Temper
Utilizing Orientation (Democratic)
Products, Properties, Data
form                                  homeostasis   
FINITE                                     NORMAL CURVE
action                                development
Perform: Expressionist Temper
Marketing Orientation (Consumer)
Emergent Phenotype, Adaptation
Cultures mutate just as genes do.  They emerge from the
primitive self renewing productive phase into tribal warfare
and imperial conquest.  As cultures stabilize, they develop
local city states and a segregating orientation like that of
ancient Athens.  As the superior city states triumph over
other states, eventually this matures into the hoarding
orientation, described by Erich Fromm in Man for Himself
(1947), an aristocracy emerges with a refining orientation
that encourages the development of absolutism and
imperialism, according to the progression discussed by
Toynbee in his "Study of History."   

In Western Civilization, there was a gradual development
from Classical modes of art into Imperial Roman and
Byzantine modes.  These decayed into tribal and feudal art
styles.  There was a gradual stabilization and development
of styles as segregating, hoarding,  and refining orientations
developed from the feudal and tribal.  A renaissance of
classical styles was associated with the refining mode of
Florence, Rome and the gradual movement toward the
Baroque and toward absolutism and the receptive orientation.

Absolutism began to break down under the influence of
colonial empires and industrial development (what we call
the glutinous orientation, in the case of colonial empire, and
the utilizing orientation in the case of industrialism).  The
emerging democratic and republican patterns encouraged a
utilizing orientation and a return to the segregating and
hoarding orientation (under the influence of nationalism).  
The result was the appearance of the Realistic and
Impressionistic tempers.

The development of overseas empire and the stimulus of
encounters with overseas cultures stimulated the emergence
of Romantic, and Eclectic styles.  The emergence of
marketing orientations from the mercantile glutinous
orientation, and the stimulus of war and conflict between
overseas cultures and deteriorating empires, caused the
further emergence of Expressionistic and Da Da tempers.

New ideas emerge from the mutation, selection, segregation
and isolation, and set point stages of information
development, the productive, exploitative, segregating,
hoarding,  and refining orientations associated with feudal,
tribal, local, and aristocratic systems.  These stages
concentrate information and ideas at the local level.  
Toynbee, in his "Study of History" refers to creative cultures
hiding, pulling away.  The isolation of Athens put off its
assimilation by empire.  The creativity of the city states of
Greece prior to Socrates, Italy prior to Raphael, Northern
Europe prior to Rembrandt, was generated by local
developments.  Classical set points of the Platonic type
occur at the end of long periods of isolated local productivity.

The aristocratic refining state often appears at the threshold
of the receptive, glutinous, utilizing, and marketing
orientations associated with mass culture of the absolutist,
imperial, democratic, and marketing types.  The mutating,
selecting, isolating, segregating, set point generating stages
are concentrating stages that set up local set points and the
systems that operate as social thermostats to maintain them.  
These generate the classical temper associated with works
like "The School of Athens."  These productive and refining
orientations cluster at the concentrating pole of the social
structure spectrum.  They are aristocratic, individualistic, and
creative.   Their socialistic, collectivist, and imitative
opposites are the great generators of empire, absolutism,
and the grand consumer based versions of democracy and
collective capitalism.

There represent the distributing pole of the orientations.  
They are concerned with assimilation (gluttony) , marketing,
utilizing, and receiving.  They are the sources of empire,
socialism, and populism on the grand scale.  Both Toynbee
and Spengler agree that these distributing orientations kill

Genetic systems in this distributing phase are all about
recombination, reproduction, and adaptive radiation, about
the emergence of the adaptive traits generated by mutations,
isolated by species formation, and assimilation into biological
systems by the elimination of maladaptive systems through
natural selection.

This mutating, isolating, and selective process tends to
happen in small isolated populations, just as similar
processes seem to be at work in the development of new
systems of ideas, they develop in small isolated systems like
those of ancient Athens and medieval Florence.  They are
spread as the systems they generate reproduce and are
disseminated.  The imperial and populist marketing phases
of culture do not create, they distribute.

Students of this process are confused by the current state of
things.  Human genes are in a distributing, not a
concentrating phase.  Oral and written, and to some degree,
printed human language systems, are also in distributing
phases.  New York, Brussels, London, Paris, Rome, Madrid,
Lisbon, Moscow, Berlin, Tokyo are centers of written
language empire based on the imperial printed language
distribution systems of English, French, Italian, Spanish,
Portuguese, Russian, Japanese, German, Arabic, Chinese
and the political leagues and organizations associated with
them: NATO, Commonwealth, United Nations, European
Union, etc.

Yet, electronic, data processing, Internet, web, virtual reality
and other modes of information development are still in a
creative phase, they are mutating, isolating, refining at a
pace that makes it impossible for the imperial systems to fully
control them.  This is why the United States is a Janus to the
world.  It contains creative centers supporting the growth of
the new technologies (Silicon Valley, Microsoft in Seattle,
etc, Cal Tech, MIT) and imperial centers imposing military
judgements through the medium of the old written,
mechanical, and printed language systems (Pentagon, CIA).
The world loves the creative culture that put a man on the
moon and hates the imperial culture that invaded Iraq.

The problem is that we want effective set points on the
cheap.  We want effective systems without going through the
turmoil and selective processes that generate effective set
points by eliminating the maladaptive ones.  One human
hope has been to use the Socratic process, the academic
process as a means of the artificial selection of ideas in
universities and colleges of debate.  Here, isolated from the
intrusion of imperial and populist censorship, in theory at
least, hopeful monsters of thought can be experimentally
tested.  The problem, however, seems to be that it is very
difficult to keep the imitative and imperialist tendencies out of
these artificial systems.  Over and over again universities
have fallen to the Scholasticism and empty conflict that
paralyzed the University of Paris.  Few really creative notions
come from these hopeful test tubes of ideas.

The very ideas you see on this page would be smashed in
the imperial college and university systems, the imperial and
marketing culture publishing systems.  Long ago I threw my
little book of poetry titled "Love" (Allan Ralph Andrews, 1974)
on the world's publishing houses and university libraries, and
discovered just how empty and hollow these systems are at
their giant bureaucratic centers, what passes for a heart in
the dead circulation of printed notions.  These funeral homes
of ideas are more interested in spelling, citation, and
appearance of the page than thought and substance.

If we look at the imperial systems that area available, the
French, Portugese, Italian, and Spanish are all rooted in the
old Latin Vulgate version of the Christian Bible and the
Roman Catholic Chuch, with its center in the Vatican City in
Rome.  The Russian system is rooted in the Russian
Orthodox Church and the Greek version of these scriptures,
looking ultimately to the old Byzantine Empire and the Greek
Orthodox Church.  The German system is split between the
Roman and Martin Luther's translation of the bible into
German.  The English system tends to focus on the King
James Version of the Bible, the Anglican Church, and
various protestant spin offs such as the Baptist, Methodist,
etc.  The Arabic systems look to the Koran in the original
Arabic.  All South Asian systems look either to the Koran in
Arabic (Urdu, Punjabi, etc) or to the Vedas in Sanscrit (Hindi).
Bengali is split between the two.

The remaining Imperial systems tend to look to the old
Chinese scriptures, Daoist, Confucian, Buddhist.  These are
the main focus of all North East Asian systems: Japanese,
Korean, Chinese.

The only alternatives are scripture systems in Pali and
Tibetan that support the South Asian and Tibetan versions of
Buddhism.  Further searching will pull up other alternatives
such as Jewish, Jain, etc.  But, all of these have always
been minority points of view, not in the mainstream, not
centers of the great imperial thought systems: Vedas in
Sanscrit, Koran in Arabic, Christian Scriptures in Latin,
Greek, Confucian Classics: the imperial thoughts
disseminated from Rome, Byzantium, Damascus, Baghdad,
Cairo, New Delhi, Peking, etc.

The main choices available to modern humans appear to be
some kind of fundamentalism based on the Koran, a version
of the Bible translated from Roman or Byzantine sources, the
Hindu Vedas (and supporting scriptures), the Buddhist three
baskets of scripture (tripitaka, available in various versions,
Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan) or thought systems rooted
in the Greek Classics (writings of Plato, Aristotle) or the
Chinese Classics ( works of Lao Tzu, Confucius, Mencius,
and their followers).  To a certain extent, both scientific
materialism and Marxism, and existentialism as well, are fruit
from the Greek Classic tree, developments of ideas begun
with Aristotle and Plato.

The thoughtful person is left with a situation where he or she
must choose between systems of ideas which have not really
changed that much since they emerged from the mouths of
Mohammed or Socrates and systems of ideas which are so
new that the very next technical development may eliminate
them.  In many ways, the current world is being cut open on
the split between the ancient Democybers and Anthocybers
out of Mecca, Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Sian,
Kyoto, Lhasa, Peking, Benares, and Athens and the
emerging Electrocybers, Astrocybers, Synocybers, and
Nymphocybers rooted in broadcasting, data processing,
internet, web, and virtual reality.  These alternative belief
systems belong to quantum mechanics, relativity, systems
theory, cybernetics, information theory, string theory,
ecology, and emerging versions of physics, chemistry,
geology, astronomy, biochemistry, biology, psychology,
anthropology, and sociology, history, and the economics,
business systems, entertainment systems, and media
systems that they support.  Human ideas are either so
ancient that they are mainly influenced by moldy manuscripts
and ancient bearded men, or so new that the next set of data
from a space probe or particle accelerator will utterly change

It is this state of things that we are attempting to fix.  The
models we are throwing into the chasm are an attempt to find
an alternative thought system that is neither so ancient that it
cannot be changed, even by God, nor so new that the ink is
still dry on the photograph.   We are suggesting that
something worthwhile might have been done between
Confucius and Einstein.  It is not all about scripture or the
latest fact from science.  But, to develop these alternative
ideas, we need to talk about ideas themselves, how they
develop, how they are integrated into systems, how these
systems develop and integrate into larger systems and
systems of systems.

You can go to other web sites and find people that question
these conflicts to excuse their lack of moral focus.  Moral
behavior begins at the biological level, emerges through the
psychological and anthropological levels to take fruit at the
sociological level.  Generally, most immoral behavior is
based on dysfunctions of the frontal lobes and personality
disorders of the antisocial, sadistic, narcissistic, and
borderline type.

Julius Kovesi has written a book titled "Moral Notions"
showing how most moral notions are second level language
notions generated by the language community to integrate
ideas that recognize the special status of humans as authors
of the words used to describe their needs.  Morals are not
values, they are notions that recognize the importance of
humans as the authors of the ideas that frame their values
and needs and make them focal elements in any normal
language (Anthros Level) system.  Harm done to a member
of the language community threatens the conceptual system,
the need and value recognizing system of that community.  
Moral notions are generated as set points, not at the value
level, but at the value maker (language maker, community
member) level of the language system, set points that
recognize the language maker, language community
member's special status.

It is easy for narcissists and antisocials to use the conflicts
between various imperial languages and imperial religions
and imperial value systems as an excuse for their antisocial
behavior, the morality and value denying behavior.  Other
personality disorders, dependent, borderline, compulsive use
these conflicts as well.  Generally, moral failings at the
civilized and printed language level (Thermos, Demos) are
rooted in deep personality and brain and physiology based
problems.  Many of these moral and personality conflicts
were illustrated in the myths of the gods.

Typically our Zeus tells us that it is alright to use someone
else sexually to satisfy our own moral needs (am I not the
king of the gods, the most important person).  Our Hestia
tells us to listen to others and let them make decisions for us.
Our Ares wants us to act on our impulses without further
consultation with our frontal lobes.  Hephaestus simply does
what he was told to do (he is the compulsive that simply
follows the written book).  Hermes makes a dramatic scene
just to get attention.  Hera makes up problems out of fear
and paranoia.  Real morality requires looking for the win-win
decisions that integrate at a higher level and avoid the stuck
switches that we see above.  It is this kind of systems
solution that we are looking for.  Our search for this may
explain some of what we have written and discussed above.

Confusion about moral issues is often solved by an appeal to
the receptive and hoarding orientations, the absolutistic and  
imperial ways of looking at things.  As mentioned above,
there are a number of old imperial systems around.  Many of
these were originally organized at the Anthros level, based
on oral language spoken by tribal leaders and prophets such
as Moses, Mohammed, etc.  These oral traditions were later
assembled in written collections like the Koran and Hebrew
Torah.  These have been used by imperial systems like
those of Rome and Constantinople, either by themselves, or
bound with other collections of books to form holy scriptures
such as the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Orthodox Scriptures.

Modern developments at the Thermos level have allowed
these to spread through the marketing systems of the
English language presses in New York and London, the
French language in Paris, the Italian in Rome, the Spanish in
Madrid, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, the Portugese in Sao
Paulo and Lisbon, Arabic in Cairo, Damascus, etc..  The
clash between these systems allows the Antisocial to claim
that morality is just a set of values and values are just
preferences and preferences are simply choices between
tribal systems.

The Narcissist, the Compulsive, the Dependent, the
Compulsive utilize these conflicts to escape the need to work
their own frontal lobes, to make real moral judgements that
are functional, that support win-win situations at higher levels
of organization, rather than tribal conflict and personal
pleasure at lower levels of organization, conflicts ending in
win-lose at a lower level, and ultimately lose-lose at higher
levels, preventing the emergence of higher levels of harmony
and order.

It is very easy to manipulate these levels of organization
conflicts to generate narrow Antisocial ends, or even narrow
Masochistic tribal ends in which the individual needlessly
sacrifices herself to an imperial order that has no useful
higher purpose except its own destructive self perpetuation.

Scientific reductionism can sometimes be just as destructive
in the development of higher levels of win-win order as blind
tribalism and masochistic sacrifice to the ghosts of ancient
empire.  Each lower level of organization contains the
potential for emergence at a higher level.  The lower level
cannot be fully understood without examination of the levels
that emerge from it.  Evolution is an emergent product of
entropy (see the book "Evolution is Entropy").  A full
understanding of thermodynamics includes its potential
emergent products.

The internal characteristics of matter and energy are just as
important as the external characteristics, even though the
internal characteristics normally only emerge at higher levels
of organization.   Passion and emotional disposition are
internal aspects of organized energy, just as mind and habit
are internal aspects of organized form.  Human mind and
human passion require human organization.  Human
organization is dependent upon the human brain and upon
human language.  These requirements do not change the
fact that human experience demonstrates a hidden potential
of energy and form.  Complex order can reveal potentials
that simple order cannot show forth.  Deep meaning often
requires higher levels of order, moral order, spiritual order
(that is holistic order), artistic order to reveal the unseen
significance hidden within the outer form, the outer motion.

One of the reasons for developing this system, the one
describe above, is to present a paradigm that will
accommodate existing scientific ideas and traditional
philosophical positions as well.  Many of the ideas developed
above are extensions of the notions presented in Daniel R.
Brooks and E. O. Wiley's "Evolution as Entropy," University
of Chicago Press, 1986 and Bernhard Rensch's "Evolution
above the Species Level," John Wiley & Sons, 1966.
Rensch presents the notion of psychic, causal, and logical
laws (p. 359).  These are correlated with the Self, Fixed, and
Part vertexes in the analytic (mind) trinity described above.  
This separating trinity is the polar opposite of the old
Hegelian Marxist dialectical (synthesis) trinity of Thesis
(Social polar opposite of Self), Antithesis (Flux polar opposite
of Fixed), and Synthesis (Whole polar opposite of Flux).  
This trinity of the mind is the same trinity of Spirit, Law, and
Body that is the central feature of the writings of Ernest
Holmes (See "The Science of Mind," Dodd, Mead, and
Company, 1938, See Holmes' "Metaphysical Chart No. I" on
page 568).  Holmes describes Spirit (Self) as "conscious
mind," "self-propelling," "self-existence," "volition," "choice,"
"will."  Holmes describes Law (Fixed) as "soul," "karmic law,"
"subconscious mind,"  "neutral," "reason - deductive only."  
Holmes describes Body (Part) as "reflection," "form,"
"objective," "results," "time," "space," "things."

What I am trying to show is how the convergence of ideas on
basic hypotheses of proven science need not imply a
convergence of interpretations of the larger meaning of these
ideas.  Parsimony is a technique of science, not a
requirement of belief.  The parsimony approach is a temper,
a state of mind that we identify with "Realism."  The point of
view developed by Holmes, above, is a compromise between
points of view we identify with the Classical, Romantic, and
Impressionistic tempers.  This contrasts with the Marxist and
Hegelian which has more of the Baroque, and Eclectic
tempers in the case of Hegel, with additional aspects that are
more Expressionistic and Realistic in the case of the
dialectical approach of Marx.

Our current philosophic bias is toward the notion of the
equality, the sameness, the uniformity of all souls, spirits,
psychic, spiritual factors.  This is an imperial bias.  Empires
like uniformity, uniform beliefs.  Aboriginal people begin with
vary different assumptions.  Aboriginal shamans explore the
differences, variations that can be experience at a subjective

The objective world provides a space time of public
attachment.  The being form within that makes that
attachment, that indwells at a inner Leibniz monad level, this
being, this interpretation from within need have nothing to do
with the interpretation of another.  My inner core may be
something complex and immaterial and yours may be simple
and material.  We do not need rules that apply to everyone,
reduce all interpretations to the same totalitarian imperial

I seek a system congruent with the external world, the
empirical world, the scientific world, the natural world, the
public world, that can explain that public world in common
scientifically repeatable terms, verifiable hypotheses, without
dictating the deep meaning, the personal value, the inner
mythology I chose to give to the outer scientifically verified

I want a metaphysics that allows me to walk in the world of
Marx and Darwin and Harris and Fromm (See Marvin Harris,
"Cannibals and Kings," and Erich Fromm "The Art of Loving")
without having to burn my copy of Science of Mind and stop
saying the meditations found on pages 553 to 567 of this
same work.  I knew, and talked to, Dr. Holmes when I was a
boy.  I see no need to stop believing and acting on the sorts
of things I find in works like Ernest Holmes' "This Thing
Called Life," G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1943.  In doing this, I do
not disagree with what we find in books like David Darling's
"Zen Physics,"  HarperCollins, 1996.  I choose to believe that
the self and the soul that Darling talks about has much more
in common with what we call "Part" in the system we
describe above.  What Holmes called "Spirit" is what Darling
calls "selflessnes" and "Zen experience."  It is all about rising
above the part and getting closer to the whole.  That whole
is variously called "Holy Spirit," "Buddhamind," "Cosmic
Mind," "Allah," "Jehovah," "Elohim," "Brahman," "Nirvana,"
etc.  We end up arguing over words in an area where we all
agree that words have strange meanings, or no meanings, or
magical meanings.  Words, as we ordinarily use them, apply
to the public place where causal laws are working.  There
are no ordinary public words for this private place.  That is
why we use systems like Zen and shamanism and
inspirational, poetic, romantic writings like those of Holmes.  
This is something that should send us to the works of Carl G.
Jung.  It is all about a different dimension of brain and mind,
what we call poseidon-mind, or artemis-mind, as opposed to
hermes-mind, hestia-mind, aphrodite-mind, zeus-mind, and
apollo-mind, the right side of the cerebrum, the less factual
dimension of the mind.  Jung called it "Anima," or "Animus,"
the deeper aspect of what some call the "soul."

The Levels
Click on    "more and more" and
to access other pages of this site
See "more and more" and "Mythicmind"
in the left corner above!
Click for files on
These Subjects:

A is for Absolute
Early Humans
A is for Animism
A is for Art
A is for Assumption1
A is for Assumptions
A is for Astrolog
A is for Awakened
A is for Axioms
More Behavior
A is for Aboriginal
A is for Absolute
A is for Abundance
Early Cultures


All Doctrines

A is for Attraction
A is for Auditory
A is for Axiom
A is for Apocalypse
A is for Apocalypse
A is for Allegory
A is for Anima
C is for Chinese
C is for
A if for Africa
A is for Animal
A is for Art
A is for Acoelomates
A is for Attachment
A is for Assumptions
A is for Abundance
A is for Acrosome
A is for Evolution
A is for Axiom/French
A is for
A is for Arctic
A is for Astrology
A is for Ancient
A is for Ancient
A is for Adapted
A is for Angel
D is for Devil
A is for
A is for Amphioxus
A is for Awe
A is for Aristotle
A is for Acceptance
A is for Absolute
D is for
DisintegrationA is for
A is for Assimilation
A is for Axioms
A is for Antithesis
A is for Acceptance
A is for Assembly
A is for Astrology
A is for Analysis
A is for Adolescent
Midheaven Files
A is for Adam
A is for Antithesis
A is for Alpha
A is for Amygdala
A is for Atom
A is for Assume
A is for Assume
More Brain
Personality Disorders
Excell Files
A is for Achievement
Earth Files
A is for Assembly
A is for Amphibious
A is for Aggression
A is for Ancestors
Click Here
Final Patten Click
This For Sure
This Too
Consider This