pg 4
(The Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org
I begin this page by introducing (or re-introducing) the reader to biological development (with some artistically derived perceptions) and then, on the next page, proceeding towards an explicated rendition of qualification for the aforementioned (and figuratively named) "Homo-Reptilicus Criminalensis" creature.
Let us look at a side-view of the human brain with the reptilian section removed and placed into a separate show case.
 |
 |
|
A few years ago (in a time machine sort of shorthand calculation), A biologist kind of guy by the name of Ernst Heinrich Haeckel took a closer look at embryonic development and compiled a (from top to bottom) pictorially arranged comparative array of different animals, taking note of the obvious similarities. (And no, his last name is not spelled "heckle" as in speckle or freckle, though he may have been sometimes heckled for his Biogenetic Law views, which was an advocation of Darwinism).
Please note that there are 3 levels X 8 examples = 24 drawings used by Ernst Haeckel as supporting evidence for his Biogenetic Law:
Biogenetic thinking had arisen in the 1820s with the work of anatomist J. Mecker (1781-1833) and zoologist Karl Ernst von Baer (1792-1876), but neither of them developed a theory of evolution. Haeckel's great biogenetic predecessor was the German zoologist Fritz Müller (1821-1897), who formulated the basic laws of biogenesis in 1864. According to Haeckel, "the sequence through which a developing individual passes in its embryological stages (a kind of development we call ontogeny), from the single cell to its fully developed state, is actually a short, compressed replay of the long series of species ancestral to that individual from the earliest geological times to the present." Simply stated, Haeckel's law of biogenesis is that ontogeny (individual development) recapitulates phylogeny (development of the species). He concluded that embryos give us the key to earlier phylogenetic stages of animal groups.
Chapter 4, page 66, Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1976
The illustration above is a generalized portrayal of the picture used by Ernst Haeckel in his 1866 General Morphologie der Organismen and his more famous 1874 Anthropogenie. The red areas are intended to indicate a similarity of early gill slit formation in the early stages of embryonic development of several different species. However, the illustration used by Haeckel has been called a fraud because it is said to contain false information regarding the actual structures. In other words, Ernst Haeckel is said to have deliberately altered some of the images in order to support his view that ontogeny provides indications of phylogeny, which in simpler terms means that our bodies, during embryonic development, have a similar design that is exhibited in various body parts during different stages of our adult and evolutionary developments. Like some sort of recording of past events as one might see in the stratigraphic layers of geological formations and played out again and again in (context specific) events such as the different layers of fuel types found in the "cracking" processes when crude oil is refined or when a vial of blood is spun in a centrifuge, or the rise-to-the-top of "illogical" emotions over ("bottom feeding") reason and rationality during a whirlwind romance, etc...
His idea that "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" is said to be more accurate if it is described as:
"Embryonic Ontogeny recapitulates Embryogenetic Phylogeny."
Just for fun, we can call the former the Haeckelian "ORP" theory while the latter "E- O- R- E- P", sounds something either like an old song that goes "ooh E, ooh ah ah... bing bang, walla walla bing bang", or indicates some playfully rhythmic monkey using a banana as a microphone trying to rap about the "REP" [reputation] of someone with the initials EO...unless you prefer to use the mnemonic device of "E or EP" to help stir recall of the Haeckelian perspective.
Those who argue against the work of Ernest Haeckel as a selected argument against Evolution to support theological views, clearly disregard the simple fact that similarity of structural development does occur and that this does provide clear and unequivocal support for the idea of an ongoing evolutionary process that is not only taking place in biology, but also religion. If their religious doctrine was as absolutely true as they argue vehemently in support of, and their faith in that truth was unswerving and not evolving in response to internal- "midternal"- and external changes, then they would not need to attempt some measure of reconfirmation which takes many forms. In other words, if religion is inviolable fact, then such facts do not need to change frequently from time to time as humans evolve, whatever label is applied to the word "evolution" to describe changes in cognitive development.
For those of you who are interested in the fraud view:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp
The following are examples of embryos from different animals set next to the previous image of the reptilian structure in what some may want to (negatively) describe as the core of the human brain:
 |
 |
|
But there are some readers, for whatever reason, who will have a slight difficulty in making a visualized connection so let me provide some additional images which bend the "tail" to make the comparison that much easier. And just for fun, take a look at the slight resemblance to Seahorses, though by moving the images around and using a little imagination, we could also see an early American (1890's) mustache with long "handles", a re-curve sports bow, a (lochness) sea "monster", (1960s - 1970s American) bicycle handlebars, the letter "S", a "baby" alien creature in the old movies entitled "Alien", etc... | ||
|
 |
 |
But I bet there were only a very few who saw the number three, while a few of you diehard Elvis Presley fans think they can see his image with a bulbous head of hair (set in place by some sort of wax, cream or Vaseline) and long sideburns.
Some of you artistically inclined folk will no doubt mentally or mechanically place copies back to back, front to front, top to bottom and side to side. By using a practiced form of visualize animation, the image "comes alive" like a collection of still images gathered together in a series of collated page slips that are held together and then flipped rapidly through.
...and now a word from our sponsor...
Any word held to a strict definition can assist in the exclusion of attributing changes occurring in one's vocational interest, to a specific meaning consistent with perspectives central to that interest, attempting to justify obvious alterations as growth without describing a process that is vilified as a preeminent article considered to be in diametric opposition to one's beliefs. Such is the word "Evolution". Many religious adherents limit God's abilities by claiming God did not, does not, and will never use (at least the) biological/genetic form of evolution because God prefers to use a "Poof", "Shazzam", and "abracadabra" methodology called "miraclization" consistent with religious doctrines developed during an age of ignorance that is, unfortunately, continually perpetuated by utter stupidity. They prefer to advocate stupid ideas because their followers are thus that much easier to manipulate. Such "experts" are nothing more than broad-minded, tunnel-visioned idiots. Hence, they are stupidiots. If God wants to use "Intelligently Designed" Mickey Mouse, Goofy, or Daffy Duck methods for the development of humanity or any other species, then let's call them what they are: Animated Cartoon Nonsense instead of devising a whole socialized panoply of award ceremonies for those who have the biggest ears, biggest mouths, and goofiest expressions, with or without colorful garments. Fortunately, there are many thousands, if not millions of individualized religious observances that have no problem with the overall idea of evolution, just particular aspects advocated by one or another theoretical position.
...and now back to our program...
The evolutionary process of a criminal, as any detective will attest to, is expressed in the criminal acts that are repeated. Like an amateur bomb maker who does not get caught for exploding their first homemade bombs, their bomb making techniques can evolve into more sophisticated and deadly "expressions". While the general public is not privy to personally witnessing many aspects of the intimate expressions of the criminal's evolutionary process (for whatever reasons or purposes one would care to), it may be of some help for some readers if I provide a metaphorical representation of the various changes which the "reptilian-like criminal" may experience, if "it" is permitted to evolve.
Any criminal, if permitted to evolve into the next stage of a criminal's growth, with respect to their individually particular and peculiar qualities, may evolve into "expressing" the characteristics of growth that are exhibited by any one of the following images:
 |
 |
 |
For further information about the above artistically created masks:
Jeff Death
Death Studios
431 Pine Lake Ave.
LaPorte, IN 46350
219-362-4321
http://www.deathstudios.com/
Take any one of the above figures and cover them with a "rubberized" human body (like surgical gloves) and then put them in a suit, a uniform, or the cloak of some religion (not the least of which is gang garb), and you may more clearly see how it is sometimes difficult for the ordinary, average, "normal" person to identify the concealed evil that exists in some politicians, corporate leaders, religious clerics, doctors, nurses, teachers, cab drivers, postal workers, milk man, law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges, advertisement executives, managers, mechanics, electricians, charity organization officers, parents using children to express unresolved childhood desires, military leaders, etc...
If you sat with a law enforcement sketch artist and were asked to portray the facial characteristics of a criminal's actions, you might see many of the above images because a criminal's actions are sometimes quite hideous, even though the criminal themselves may be physically attractive or have a likeable personality. Needless to say, most of us would not want to come face to face with any of the above creatures in daylight, much less in some dimly lit street corner or back alley dead end. In other words, these portraits are metaphorical representations of criminal acts (and not the criminals themselves) that are often faceless to the public and only typically described in details with names such as murder, rape, massacre, mayhem, torture, kidnapping, bedlam, grotesque, blood and guts, decapitation, dismemberment, poisoning, theft, embezzlement, molestation, adultery, usury, manipulation, coercion, drowning, mutilation, suffocation, "collateral damage," "reasonable loss," robbery, martial law, justifiable deadly force, "LAW" (as a GOD), righteous vindication, surgical strike, pharmaceutically- coherent medical treatment, etc...
The above portraitures are an attempt to provide a face to the many horrors that are experienced by so many people who have been victims of criminal behavior; the aftermath of which can be extremely horrific, leaving them scarred and fearful (to say the least), for the rest of their lives. If you haven't had any personal encounters with a criminal who is intent on doing you harm, it is difficult to imagine the many images of hell that can be experienced. By providing some small semblance of the criminal mind as it really is, perhaps you can be shocked enough into accepting the fact that our laws are wholly inadequate at protecting the innocent from the many predatory activities that reptilian-minded beasts of prey are involved in, both legally and illegally. Many, many, many observers know all too well that we need a whole new form of justice and punishment system that not only addresses individual criminals, but also the social and developmental circumstances which continue to breed these disgusting creatures... thus calling for a Cenocracy (New Government).
In contemplating what can be done to confront the birth, development, and evolution of the criminal, there are several obstacles to changing the laws so that they will adequately address the criminal problem in a sustained way in order to eliminate all conditions that breed the circumstances which encourage acts of criminal behavior. These obstacles can be summed up by naming those institutions which benefit from the public remaining in a state of fear, apprehension, and varying other measures of insecurity because such a condition predisposes the public to be easily persuaded to follow those who suggest some measure of relief from the many circumstances which arise due to actual, potential, or make-believe instances of uncertainty:
- Government (war, terrorism, recession, etc...)
- Motion picture industry (crime, horror movies, lust, greed, etc...)
- Media (biased reporting/analysis of war, greed, crime, recession, etc...)
- Religion (anti-Christ, Armageddon, pestilence, etc...)
- Corporations (lay-offs, getting fired, drop in wages, decrease in services, etc...)
- Science (misused by any of the above institutions, etc...)
In short, those who seek control over others in order that they may fulfill their own personal agendas, regardless of how many "followers" must be sacrificed for a "greater" (their own) cause, be it ideologically, egotistically, or otherwise based. It is unfortunate that far too many followers, be they called flock, constituents, students, clients, etc., do not recognize, define, nor seek justice for crimes committed by those in social leadership positions. More often, lesser criminal acts are disproportionately interpreted by extremes of a public consciousness venting frustrations for personal short-comings. The need for requesting changes in laws is complicated by the fact that crimes have and do take place amongst the highest business, religious, and political offices in society, including departments of judicial proceedings. Instead of being brought to criminal justice, justice for them is equated with permitting them to retire from public life with a pension derived from ill-gotten gains of criminal acts.
When such organizations think they are losing control over public opinion, that they no longer feel they are on top of some desired social hierarchy, they will create circumstances of fear, regardless of the consequences to innocent lives or the property of those lives. In some instances the fears and insecurities they attempt to thrust on others turns in on themselves through the process of a psychotic breakdown; expressed as a diametric opposition sustained by a belief they are right, by engaging in a "if I/we can't have it no one will" exercise... by dying in a blaze of glory in which they try to take as many with them as they can.
See for example:
http://www.2012.com.au/reptilian_brain.html
Indeed, many a porch swing and sidewalk philosopher has noted that it is a strange society that which we call human civilization:
When a person breaks out into a rash caused by brushing into poison oak, ivy, etc., we do not say that the plant attacked us (defined as assault and battery), even though the rash is an irritant used as a means of defense by the plant against potential predators who may want to eat, destroy or remove it from a staked-out homestead.
There is no Congressional mandate to establish a law enforcement team to seek out the capture or destruction of all such plants potentially harmful to humans. Nor are there no legislated declarations of war established to eradicate all bees, mosquitoes, ants, flies, grasshoppers, locusts, wasps, spiders, snakes, moles, mice, rats, etc... Human society merely permits each individual their own discretion of killing such plants, animals, and insects when they invade our lives with the perceived intent to do us harm, invade our privacy, or take up residence on our property, but we are not defined as murderers if we use biological warfare such pesticides and herbicides, or use explosives, much less fly-swatters or some homemade concocted remedy.
Society typically views such pests that are potentially harmful to one's crops, livestock and health as personal problems to be taken care of "by any reasonable means" within lawful statutes overseeing the usage of chemical agents, explosive materials, etc... In other words, you're not supposed to use a nuclear bomb to get rid of corn eating crows that are outwitting your every conventional method of eradication. Many a fly has outwitted a would-be fly-swatting adversary.
Likewise, When an animal of the wild (such as a bear, dog, wolf, crocodile, shark, etc.) maws, kills, or in any way attacks an innocent person, that animal is typically executed by some sort of posse' because of the danger it poses to all people everywhere if it were simply relocated to another place inhabited by people. These "adversaries" (if I may be permitted to use the word playfully), are simply viewed as creatures doing what comes naturally (unless they are viewed as rabid), and in many cases, it is the human population which has invaded their territory and not the other way around. Animals use whatever means at their disposal to try to effect the security of their homeland.
However, let us not overlook the fact that such "roundups" with or without an execution is usually sanctioned by laws governing human occupation and habitation, to be carried out by authorized individuals. Such wild animals are not usually warehoused with other creatures that have attacked the innocent in one way or another. Nor do we place such animals into a cage to feed them, provide them with medical care, recreational space, nor permit them to marry, mate and have visits with those of its own kind, legal advocates, or those that sympathize more so with the wild animal for being incarcerated than those that were innocently attacked.
We know that in most cases these wild animals can never be truly domesticated, though we might teach them to mimic remnants of civilized behavior in a controlled setting where deprivations, punishments, rewards, and isolation from potential innocent victims is strictly monitored and enforced. In controlled situations, many a wild animal can be trained to perform acts of compliancy. Yet, only the very naive are fooled into believing the wild animal is "cured" from expressing further acts of attack when returned to conditions where prey is plentiful and they are not monitored... to act out socially acceptable expressions exhibiting meaningful change away from the animal's true nature.
...And only the very foolish delude themselves into naively believing a rapist, a murderer, a molester, etc., are not wild animals.
Yes, there are cases in which a crime is the product of circumstances within a contrived context where judicial decree is improper, inappropriate, and intentionally derived from the perspective of a one-sided interpretation. For example, taking bread from someone in circumstances of food deprivation (such as a slave camp) may be defined as a crime punishable by torture or death. In another instance, though someone is called a murderer and imprisoned (or executed) because they killed a spouse for infidelity, some observers feel the spouse is justified because their way of life was attacked and destroyed. One must wonder how many of our present laws are steeped in antiquated rationales based merely on judgmental patriarchal or matriarchal predispositions falsely called perspicacious wisdom, insight and an intuitive appreciation of human behavior for the good of humanity.
In terms of serial forms of criminals whether they be serial killers, serial rapists, serial robbers, etc., we can portray a three-part structure of activity, yet they focus on two parts that we can recognize as an oppositional polarization:
They are focused on the excitement (narcosis) involving the predation/preparation of circumstances involving a potential victim, whether random or stalked. (They are in a participant mode of self referencing.)
The actual commission of the crime may appear surreal such as watching a television show (or monitoring themselves in a dream-like state) and thus has a low affect on them. [They are an observer mode of self referencing.)
They are focused on the "aftermath" (narcosis) high/adrenaline rush of the activity they participated in. If they get caught, they may experience the "rush" of an increased sobriety with respect to the restraint of activity caused by incarceration/court system processing. They may "rush" to appear to be subdued, whereby a stance of readiness for flight is concealed. (This too is a participant mode of self referencing regardless of personal denials as responses to being captured.)
Note: the "self" to which I speak of is a primitive state of awareness (like a reptile) and is not to be construed with self-consciousness. For example, an animal is "aware" that it is caught in a snare and may try varying means to get free, but it is not conscious of itself in terms of empathy in relation to other living organisms, whether of its own species or otherwise. The brain of an infant, with respect to developmental processes, in a manner of speaking, is closer to that of its reptilian ancestry than it is to that of an adult human. A criminal, on the other hand, though their brain has developed to be closer to that of an adult human, for one reason or another, functions like that similar to an infant's. Succinctly stated, the criminal has the brain form but not its function. The use of an analogy may be helpful (so long as the comparison is not taken to far from its intended simplicity): Most people are like a Mulberry tree that produces fruit while the career criminal appears to be a variety that is fruitless. Educational, socialization and other interventionist methods can thus be likened to different forms of grafting which assist a tree to be fruit producing, though some feel that such measures are like trying to get water from stone, gold from lead, or remove water from a bottomless well with a hole-strewn ladle.
In identifying the off-shoot hominid-like creature dubbed "Homo-Reptilicus Criminalensis", it may be of some interest to a few readers if I convey a three-part expression (interestingly enough) told to me by some prisoners who were attending a prison educational system in which I worked:
Although it is a pattern-of-three, it reflects an underlying singularly focused oppositional dichotomy between what they want and don't have. Just like an infant whose "world view" is focused on need, without a thought for an attendant reciprocation, the criminal frequently acts on impulse. Although many of us have the same types of impulses (for example, an urge to strike our or kill someone deliberately annoying us), we most often choose an alternative such as leaving the circumstances, asking them to stop, or even giving them an alternative dosage of their own medicine. In one instance a young male neighbor was "testing" the volume control of a new car stereo. All the neighbors were visibly bothered by it but no one had the courage to say anything. Telling him to stop or threatening to call the police might very well have escalated the situation into a direct confrontation, so I chose instead to let him know that by displaying the "cool" tunes of "his" music with a "tight" stereo, he was advertising the availability of such to stereo thieves who would do whatever they could to his car to get the stereo out. Shortly after I departed he turned it off.
Your Questions, Comments or Additional information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com