Threesology Research Journal
Threes in Evolution
Page F

(The Study of Threes)

This page is a companion to the following links:

Back in the 1970's and 1980's, I had a seasonal full-time job first as a runner then as a manager of a Valet Parking service. When the parking lot of 300- 500 cars was full, most of the workers went to lunch or on a break, while a skeleton crew remained to retrieve vehicles of customers who would leave. During one of these lull periods, as a sort of psychology experiment, I placed an "US" sign on one temporary toilet stall and a "THEM" sign on the door of the stall next to it. While some customers paid no heed of the signs, either because they couldn't read, didn't care, or whatever, most customers were observed hesitating on which temporary public toilet stall to use. Some even asked out loud who is the "US" and who is the "THEM?" While one or two of the workers would say it doesn't matter, I would say that we (pointing to myself and the other workers) are the "US" and you (pointing to those wanting to use the toilet) are the "THEM." A few people got so confused that they walked off. Eventually, someone from the front office came to tell us to remove the signs... no doubt from a complaint lodged by one of those who got confused or refused to identify themselves as either an "US" or "THEM."

While both toilet stalls were, for the most part, identical inside and out, some people chose to use one or the other depending on some undisclosed criteria involving the "US" and "THEM" labels. Jokingly, amongst the other workers, I would say that the guys were always the "US" and the girls where always the "THEM." I would emphasize and deemphasize status of importance or a less-than quality with facial gesturing as well as intonations of voice. It was an amusing experiment that can be replicated should any psychology student want to do such an experiment for credit, that is if the instructor approves (and you don't use the teachers private toilet).

Instead of the "US" and "THEM" labels, various labeling methodologies are used in all subject areas to add to or detract from one belief or another. Even if someone provides evidence to support their belief, it doesn't mean their belief is factual, only the criteria with which the belief is substantiated. However, this is the way of humanity. This is the way we live. Right or wrong, our sciences, religions, and day to day endeavours are the result of making distinctions. We compartmentalize, we separate, we segregate, we itemize, as well as engage in numerous other tactics of organizing our thoughts, feelings, property, assumptions, self-lies, self-truths, and everything else. And for those who say they don't or try not to relegate this, that or another into any form of category, this lack of categorization is itself a category as well.

Does race amongst humans actually exist, or is it a category manufactured due to prevailing systems of belief? And if those systems of belief disappear, does race actually disappear, or is it merely ignored because much of what we of today attribute to RACE is negative, in a disparaging sense? Does the topic of RACE improve humanity's survival or deprive it of a chance to move forward, however one would care to define improvement? From whatever footing you care to take, let's take a short stroll into the topic of "US" versus "Them (In a Biologically/Evolutionarally manner of speaking):"

It has been said that "race is a social concept, not a biological one."

It has also been said that Racial categories recognized by society are not reflected on the genetic level, whereby the standard labels used to distinguish people by "race" have little or no biological meaning.

It has also been said that the view of "race is a social concept, not a biological one," is itself a social concept based upon a socially constructed biological perspective, and is not a biological concept manifested without social influences concerning race.

Some people even want to dispense with the term of RACE or SPECIES when it comes to comparing humans with jungle primates, based upon what they believe to be negligible differences in DNA:

3 primates compared to humans for differences in DNA:

  1. Human and chimp DNA differs by 1.24%
  2. Human and gorilla DNA differs by 1.62%
  3. Human and orang-utan DNA differs by 1.63%

--- Gene Data Underline Primate Link --- BBC News

If we place the value of 100% next to humans and subtract the above percentages from it, we get the following:

  1. 100% - 1.24% = 98.76%
  2. 100% - 1.62% = 98.38%
  3. 100% - 1.63% = 98.37%

...As to what percentage of your genes is reflected in your external appearance, the basis by which we talk about race, the answer seems to be in the range of .01 percent," according to Dr. Harold P. Freeman, the chief executive, president and director of surgery at North General Hospital in Manhattan, who has studied the issue of biology and race. He concludes that "this is a very, very minimal reflection of your genetic makeup."

--- Do Races Differ? ---

Clearly, while the DNA differences are small, there are obvious characteristics that are not the same. And while our present genetic screening technology is able to distinguish these small differences which do in fact result in recognizable distinctions, our present genetic screening technology is still too primitive to isolate even smaller percentage differences that may exist amongst humans. For example, with better equipment, percentage differences amongst the African, Asian, and Indo-European/Caucasian races may reflect thousandth of a percentage, these are nonetheless indicative of exterior differences that we call race.

No less, because of the human inclination to consider that humans are the superior species, our anthropocentric attitude may be unjustified in attributing the "100%" label to itself. Some would prefer to leave the 100% value as an empty label that is reserved for some future human form, and still others might prefer to attribute such a value to GOD.

Humorously, some might want to consider Einstein (and his ilk) an alien with some human characteristics, thus describing a greater percentage difference, while, in all humility, I must acknowledge my own (Threesological) alien species has a whopping 3.33% difference. But please don't tell any Ufologists or they might try to capture me (and my ilk) in order to do all sorts of experimentation. (We honestly have no interest in inter-breeding with humans in order to breed a new species. We do not want our kids subjected to all the silly racial slurs humans like to engage in.)

On the other hand, it is seldom considered that just as earlier primitives met with termination points in their survivability as a species, with whom we are thought to be more closely linked (genetically) than jungle primates, the differences amongst the present day races may be those differences which indicate a similar ability to survive into the future. In other words, we present-day humans are thought to be more closely related to Australopithecines, Cro-magnon man, and Neanderthals than to chimps, orang-utans, and gorillas, even though our closer relatives became extinct. This may suggest that one or more present day races (species of hominid) will also become extinct because they too are part of this same pattern of extinction-process. Therefore, it behooves humanity to attempt to distinguish which present-day human species is the more viable for continuation, or even if all present day humans are forms of hominids that will nonetheless meet their demise to make way for a more modern form of hominid to exist in future centuries (as the Earth's rotation continues to slow).

Let me interject the idea that the viability of the human species may be linked to the rotation rate of the Earth. By extrapolating backwards in time, it appears that the onset of humanity began when the rotation rate of the Earth had a 23 hour day length. For a discussion of this idea, see the information via the following link:

--- Earth's Rotation Rate page 1 ---

If we are one of those who would use DNA data to support a claim that we, biologically speaking, are the same and RACE does not exist on the DNA level, perhaps we should also consider disregarding other social labels because they too are not reflected on the DNA level, even though in some cases, they may be so, on other biologically-related levels:

  • No distinction between infants and adults. (Let infants change their own diapers.)

  • No distinction between males and females. (No need for separate bathrooms, etc.)

  • No distinction between retardation and superior intelligence. (Since we already have retards running the country as politicians, corporate executives and theologians, they might as well be educators.)

  • No distinction between Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha. (Some people believe that all of them are just like police officers, they're never around when you need them most.)

  • No distinction between war mongering G.W. Bush and war mongering Hitler.

  • No distinction between Jesus and Satan. (or for that matter, Heaven and Hell.)

  • No distinction between Criminals and Non-criminals. (The American Justice System already practices variations of this idea.)

  • No distinction between shady Lawyers and Used-car sales-people. (You mean there is a difference?)

  • No distinction between abortion clinics and car repair garages. (This is commonly accepted already.)

  • No distinction between Corporate Executives and Criminal gangs. (Just look at America.)

  • No distinction between those who create fantasy TV shows and those who create reality TV shows. (Both produce contrived scenarios.)

  • No distinction between Japanese, Chinese, Koreanese, Vietnamese, etc... (Some people think they all look the same, just as some people think all Black peoples look the same.)

  • No distinction between Dentists wanting to make money by impacting teeth with gold fillings and Prospectors wanting to make money by pulling gold out of impacted mines.

  • No distinction between those who try to sing on "American Idol" television program and Comedians who get tomatoes thrown at them.

  • No distinction between participants on the U.S. "Fear Factor" television program and circus performers jumping through hoops (those who will do anything for a buck [money].)

  • No distinction between participants on the U.S. "Survivor" television program and those who fight over discounted goods at a sale (except those at the sale often times have better survival skills.)

  • No distinction between White House/ Congressional officials and Looney Toons cartoon characters, (even though it is suspected that cartoon characters such as goofy have a better DNA code.)

  • No distinction between American, African or Australian Blacks.

  • No distinction between predatory "good" priests and predatory "bad" criminals.

  • No distinction between Tomatoes called either a fruit or a vegetable.

  • No distinction between rich/poor, fat/skinny, strong/weak, etc... (since they are considered opposites of the same coin.)

  • No distinction between those experiencing neurotic religious states and those whose states of neurosis are due to artificially produced chemical substances.

And if humans are made in the image of God, does this mean God and Humans, as well as angels and the Devil, all have the same DNA... but with distinguishable genetic differences? If humanity is in the image of God, in what respect? Are humans but one or more percentage difference similar to the percentage distinctions made between present humans and other primates? If we share some similarities does this mean we can not be different races? (Humans share similarities with other animals but we are considered different species.) Does God belong to the human race or humans belong to God's race, or is the usage of a "Race" distinction, irrelevant? Whereby, no distinction can be made? Are humans a different species from "God"? Should the views of one species supercede that of another?

For those claiming to be in the "image" of God, it is not wrong for some to claim that they are God, or are in close touch with God, or have God in the palm of their hand? Can not these expressions be either metaphorical or actual depending on how one defines "race"? Furthermore, if humans are god-like because their DNA is the same as God's, then if someone claims they are a messenger for God, hear God's voice, know the thoughts of God, were instructed by God, are the son/daughter of God, etc., then they are not lying, they are using metaphors to attempt some measure of communicating to an ignorant world about an inherent connection to God that most people are totally oblivious of.

For humanity to claim that it was made in the reflection of God is just as crazy as being "God Crazy" or "Crazy about God." It is another type of racial argument that uses words such as religion, belief, interpretation, etc., as substitutes for the "RACE" word.

When Joan of Arc said she was instructed by God, was it a naive interpretation of her own inner voice whose sudden appearance in the consciousness of an uneducated peasant girl overwhelmed her sensibilities to a degree of awe; whereby she had no other reference with which to interpret her experiences except with the commonly accepted religiously- oriented distortions of reality that prevailed as a common truth in her day and age?

Take for example the following remarks by Lawrence Durrell:

You see, Justine, I believe that Gods are men and men Gods; they intrude on each other's lives, trying to express themselves through each other --- hence such apparent confusion in our human states of mind, our intimations of powers within or beyond us." - The Alexandria Quartet

Such a view of humanity suggesting that there is a "consciousness" connection to the "Gods" and humans, is reflected in the ideas of the late Princeton Psychologist Julian Jaynes... in his book the The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976, 1990).

"When Julian Jaynes...speculates that until late in the second millennium B.C. men had no consciousness but were automatically obeying the voices of gods, we are astounded but compelled to follow this remarkable thesis through all the corroborative evidence..."

—John Updike, in The New Yorker

At the heart of this book is the revolutionary idea that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but is a learned process brought into being out of an earlier hallucinatory mentality by cataclysm and catastrophe only 3000 years ago and still developing. The implications of this new scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion— and indeed, our future. In the words of one reviewer, it is "a humbling text, the kind that reminds most of us who make our living through thinking, how much thinking there is left to do."

(The book) Presents a theory of the bicameral mind which holds that ancient peoples could not "think" as we do today and were therefore "unconscious," a result of the domination of the right hemisphere; only catastrophe forced mankind to "learn" consciousness, a product of human history and culture and one that issues from the brain's left hemisphere.

Three forms of human awareness are examined in terms of the physiology of the brain and how it applies to human psychology, culture, and history:

  1. The bicameral or god-run man.
  2. The modern or problem-solving man.
  3. Contemporary forms of throwbacks to bicamerality (e.g., religious frenzy, hypnotism, and schizophrenia).

— excerpt from the introduction:

"O, what a world of unseen visions and heard silences, this insubstantial country of the mind! What ineffable essences, these touchless rememberings and unshowable reveries! And the privacy of it all! A secret theater of speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite resort of disappointments and discoveries. A whole kingdom where each of us reigns reclusively alone, questioning what we will, commanding what we can. A hidden hermitage where we may study out the troubled book of what we have done and yet may do. An introcosm that is more myself than anything I can find in a mirror. This consciousness that is myself of selves, that is everything, and yet is nothing at all — what is it?
And where did it come from?
And why?"

--- Julian Jaynes Society ---

See also:

--- I Hear Voices page A ---

The point I want to make in providing a sketch of the "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" book, is the consideration that humans can know the mind of God if in fact the God of humans is a biologically based emergent property due to genetics, a cataclysmic event, diet, disease, or whatever. Hence, in a sense, each of us does have a separate God that can be manifested at times by way of one or more voices, urgings, cravings, dreams, etc., though in the modern sense, these same labels are used instead of the "God" label since it is commonly viewed that "God" is a singular entity, power, energy, etc., who watches over all of existence.

In fact, the modern concept of God is given an exalted position as is described by such labels as HOLY, great, supreme, etc., which suggests that at sometime in human history, someone convinced others to believe that their God (voices) were representative of "THE" foremost God and that all other gods (voices) were either good messengers or bad messengers... and hence, if their God was "THE" god, then they were "THE" foremost intermediary for interpreting and defining the meaning(s) of the voices. Likewise, since their god was greatest, they too were great, but did not force the issue in order to be questioned by others, because they concealed such self-centered musings through acts of humility ("I am only a servant of God"), generosity ("I provide an offering, so should you"), and kindness ("I am compassionate, kind, and loving towards you, so you should be likewise towards me).

If we view humans as being 100% in terms of DNA composition, then God must be more than 100%, if God is superior to humans. If we take the percentages of those primates previously mentioned and make the analogy to different octane values of fuel, we would have unleaded, unleaded regular, unleaded premium, aircraft fuel, and rocket fuel. And if these were biological entities with the same underlying DNA structure, their minuscule percentage differences can make or break the performance of an engine's operation. This is why some believe that it is detrimental to a society that wants to evolve beyond its present performance, to permit itself to be held back by those who still have one foot solidly planted in the world of some past hominid group. To have such individuals participate in a society that wants to become better than it is, is much like freeing a troop of monkeys in one's house.

Clearly, while some might want to claim that there is no specific "RACE"-related indicator on a strand of DNA (as we of the present can analyze it), it is just as useful a label as is age, gender, religious orientation, sexual orientation, height, weight, alcohol/drug usage, home owner, renter, disabled, etc..., depending on the context in which such labels are used. And to claim that the label "RACE" has no place in society whatsoever, is just as ignorant as saying that the label "culture" has no value to cultural Anthropologists, Sociologists, or Psychologists. If we are to dispense with the use of the label "race," because it is said to be a social construction, then we might as well get rid of other social labels such as food, water, house, car, book, television, pen, pencil, church, religion, hamburger, etc...

Since one hamburger is just the same as another hamburger, there is no need to make the distinction between single, double, and triple hamburgers, hamburgers with or without cheese, hamburgers with or without sauce, hamburgers with or without onions, etc...

Perhaps all of humanity is but a troop of meatheads anyway... with or without pickles... and hold the mayo. Clearly, we all practice some form of distinction, even though you may not define the practice as prejudice, segregation, separation, etc...

Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland