Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
Calling All Communists and Socialists
page 12


The dialectical used by Marx, Engels, Hegel and others is a description of sequences. History is a description of sequences. The dialectical formula is a description of historical sequences. DNA, RNA, and Proteins refers to an historical sequence in biology, though there are differences of opinion whether it was DNA or RNA which came first. The following chart adds a simplistical numerical referencing that may be of value in describing a lineage to the arrival of DNA, RNA, and Proteins... though an old central dogma has been that DNA codes for RNA which codes for Proteins:

What came first? (7K)

Source: Bio-physiological 3's page 2 There are 3 types of biologically active DNA: A, B, Z
Wikipedia: DNA

There are also 3 stop codons and 1 start codon:

genetic code (8K)

Source: NCBI Molecular Biology Review

There are 3 main types (or classes) of RNA involved in Protein synthesis: Messenger, Transfer, Ribosomal
Wikipedia: List of RNAs
ABZ DNA forms (182K)

So, when we get to the third item in our 3-part list of basic biopolymers, we come to find that proteins, as identified previously, have a single, double, triple strand conformation, with a composite referred to as a quaternary structure, though it has been discussed as a 3 -to- 1 ratio, just as DNA and RNA have likewise been previously described. But what wasn't discussed was that there are 20 most common amino acids in proteins (though their are 64 possible amino acids based on the 43 nucleotide configuration):


• Arginine - Arg - R • Lysine - Lys - K • Aspartic acid - Asp - D • Glutamic acid - Glu - E

Polar (may participate in hydrogen bonds):

• Glutamine - Gln - Q • Asparagine - Asn - N • Histidine - His - H • Serine - Ser - S • Threonine - Thr - T • Tyrosine - Tyr - Y • Cysteine - Cys - C • Methionine - Met - M • Tryptophan - Trp - W

Hydrophobic (normally buried inside the protein core):

• Alanine - Ala - A • Isoleucine - Ile - I • Leucine - Leu - L • Phenylalanine - Phe - F • Valine - Val - V • Proline - Pro - P • Glycine - Gly - G

(Note three-lettered abbreviations.)

Most protein molecules have a hydrophobic core, which is not accessible to solvent and a polar surface in contact with the environment (although membrane proteins follow a different pattern). While hydrophobic amino acid residues build up the core, polar and charged amino acids preferentially cover the surface of the molecule and are in contact with solvent due to their ability to form hydrogen bonds (by donating or accepting a proton from an electro-negative atom). Very often they also interact with each other: positively and negatively charged amino acids form so called salt bridges, while polar amino acid side chains may form side chain-side chain or side chains-main chain hydrogen bonds (with polar amide carbonyl groups). It has been observed that all polar groups capable of forming hydrogen bonds in proteins do form such bonds. And since these interactions are often crucial for the stabilization of the protein three-dimensional structure, they are normally conserved. A detailed atlas of hydrogen bonding for all 20 amino acids in protein structures was compiled by Ian McDonald and Janet Thornton and can be found here. Below you can see a figure showing the distribution of the different amino acids within protein molecules.

The figure demonstrates that while a high fraction of the hydrophobic amino acids are buried within the core of the structure, this number gradually decreases for amino acids with polar groups and reaches a minimum for charged residues (the vertical axis shows the fraction of highly buried residues, while the horizontal axis shows the amino acid names in one-letter code). Taken from the tutorial by J.E. Wampler

exposed and buried (20K)

Source: Basics of Protein Structure

There are conservations of number (quantity and quality) which are being used because "something" is constraining what might otherwise be an "explosion" of usage. And even though there are millions of living species (insects, plants, vertebrates, viruses, bacteria), they all follow an underlying basic plan of existence because they have to. The environment forces them to. Just as it forces humanity even if people refuse to correlate basic recurring patterns of mind, body and soul (religion) with environmental patterns that are cyclical and deteriorating. Whereas humans are intelligent enough to seek out the usage of a presumed scientific approach to Sociology and Political Science because it is thought that they could better advantage themselves in pursuit of a better life by abiding to Universal truths; yet they come to deny such an approach when someone advances the opinion that there exists a recognizable pattern in various sciences which can already be seen (but is overlooked) in such subjects... if only we would broaden our appreciation of what is being presented to us.

While we can only speculate what Marx, Engels and Hegel might make of a recurringly basic "threes" pattern in genetics, physics, anatomy and various intellectualizations (philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, etc...), it's no doubt they would try to incorporate the existence of such a pattern into their ideas, or alter their ideas according to the available science because they could then use it as a precedent for establishing a greater emphasis of truth. One reassessment of reality might well be to acknowledge that because DNA (or RNA) is apparently showing up in all life forms, the myriad relevance of life is to pursue the development of that living being which will best perpetuate the existence of DNA, and not the other way around. In other words, DNA also has an underlying plan of action to try to develop a species which is most viable to its existence. If this viability is in the form of some insect, plant, amphibian, virus, etc., then the other forms of life are superfluous. They are experimentations like a cook or baker who continues to create because that is where their interest lies. They don't change professions. DNA, RNA and Proteins are specialized laborers who can only function within the scope of built in constraints... just like life must retain the basic floor plan which has been endowed to it by the impressions given to it by the patterns in the environment. The problem is, that humans tend to over or under-analyze, whereby the patterns which do exist in a recurring fashion are subjected to a dichotomization which distracts them. They contrast the presence of pattern with an assumed pattern of distinction involving examples of non-pattern similarity as a means of disregarding the pattern noted before hand. Humans think that a Universal pattern should be Uniformly applied, and any deviation is to give an account of a non-universal pattern.

If Physicists discredited the recurrence of patterns-of-three in atomic particle formations because of the presence of non-three-patterned occurrences, our attempts at developing means and methods of predictability would be haywire. And just because patterns-of-three regularly occur in atomic particle formations, and these atomic particle configurations are claimed to be that which exists in the entire Universe, doesn't automatically mean this is the pattern which exists uniformally. It only represents what humans have devised while subjected to the pressures of an environment which regularly "encourages" the adoption of three-patterned configurations. We do not know if the existing theories of atomic particles are little more than another example of an identifiable three-patterned influence. The same goes for religious ideology and our attempts to establish a more viable human society. Metaphorically speaking, if we are merely clinging to the relative calm of a shoreline that is slowly being encroached upon by a whirlpool or tide that is scratching away at the shore and we have to make periodic adjustments in order to re-establish some measure of equilibrium on a piece of real-estate that is shrinking from without due to such an erosion... and from within due to an increasing, unchecked population that is abusive to a finite array of usable resources... Where then is truth except in the many rationalizations we have devised? Religion is one of these rationalizations and so are the present dysfunctional governments such as the U.S., Great Britain, China, Russia, in the Middle East, in Africa, in South America, In Europe and the many Island repositories thereof.

Scientific experiments can be carried out all that you want, but the methods, means and interpretation are inclined to coincide with the necessities of equilibrium within the confines of an environment which expects compliance to its increasingly diminishing patterns of exercised cyclicity. Whereas millions or billions of us may claim to be seeking a better form of government whether it is called a Communism, Democracy, Socialism, Theocracy, Dictatorship, Oligarchy, or whatever; what if we can't because the cyclical patterns of the overall environment prevent us from doing so... because these forms of government, as presently constructed, our not congruent to the requirements of establishing a measure of equilibrium within the presence sequences of decay which may be headed towards a periodically driven momentum of environmental extremes? Whereas a stable government of any kind can be practiced in the face of a cycle of light afternoon rains, what if the cycle changes to an radical standard with monsoons? The fact that governments change according to environmental extremes also attests to the presence of accommodated change, reliance on, and expectations related to cyclical forms of mild weather that is changing dramatically over large expanses of time.

We may never be able to utilize the benefits of a True Communism, True Democracy, or True Socialism (or whatever), because our conceptualizations of "truth" from which plans are being devised... are incomplete equations just like the ideas of Marx, Engels and so many others. We continue to get it wrong in our design of religion, government, economics, etc., because we have misread environmental patterns and how they affect us, and all of life, on basic levels... within the design constraints of a given physiology. Just as many claim we need to live in harmony with "Mother Earth" in order to reap the best benefits of our finite lives because we are virtually trapped on this planet, its solar system and galaxy... this philosophy also falls short of an accomplished greater appreciation of incremental decadent changes in the global, planetary, galactic and universal environment. It is a philosophy which expects us to accept a fate of indentured servitude instead of cutting the umbilical cord and devise a philosophy of sociability which fully appreciates the situation of imposed environmental patterns from which we should strive to free ourselves from. To abide by one another "mommy earth" philosophies is an eventual death sentence for all life forms on Earth. We need not consign ourselves to such an antagonistic antiquity of "paganistic matriarchicity". Such ideologies are like the efforts of a selfish mother who uses confederates to convince their brood that it is best for them to stay put (instead of flying from the nest and living their own lives), and will devise schemes and machinated intrigues to prevent a child from venturing to far from their control.

Like Marx and Engels, many readers come to think of themselves as advancing a "Scientific Sociology", but never actually involve a great deal of scientific knowledge in their philosophy. And should someone come along and attempt to provide not only more scientific knowledge as well as observable patterns to be applied to a sociological context of sociological endeavors, they become dismissive because to embrace such a recognition requires them to adopt a gargantuan level of revisioning in their ideology. But if they aren't able to find fault with the Science or recognized pattern, then they seek to create a disparagement against the messenger(s). They refuse to relinquish themselves to an ideology which incorporates their own as being a variable, because it then constitutes their view as an effect of translation instead of being "THE" algorithm from which to discern a greater truth value. Though they may well recognize that myriad forms of wealth, power and prestige are due to varying forms of deceit, intimidation, bullying, ambush, retaliation, character assassination, net-working amongst like-minded ilk, prejudice, sexual and other deferments... they don't like it if the same tactics are used against them. And so, we as Revolutionists... though our ideas may be superior in logic, come to further acknowledge that we are confronted by a social environment where lies, deceit and back-scratching deals are the foremost used currency. So what are we to do?

After we assign to ourselves the adoption of a New Government philosophy, only to find that it is wholly rejected by those in various business, government and religious positions... how are we to confront them when they are adept at manipulating various public factions to be their vanguard? How do we manipulate the manipulators into undoing themselves if they will try to use the same tactic against us? What sort of chess will we play, if their rules involve breaking any rule they can get away with, like the psycho-pathological level of lying taking place in American politics supported by an untrustworthy coterie of Journalists? If we protest, will the truth be told or mangled to fit the views of those in controlling social positions who want to maintain such controls and will stop at nothing to do so? How do we confront a legacy of falsehoods and deliberate obfuscation mixed with denial, embattlement instigation, legal contrivances and the like... very often supported by a non-thinking public... or a public with extraneous forms of ulterior motivations? How can we advance a True form of Communism, Democracy or Socialism if the Majority of the public has never even heard of such a concept, and think they actually know what such an ideal is as denoted by the falsified representations of past leaders who used such words to carry out individualized obsessions, retaliations and expressions of a distorted ego?

How do we market our ideology as a bona fide value of truth when we have millions who rely on fabricated illusions thereof? How can we promote an enlightened philosophy of Sociology if people are more comfortable retreating to a self-defined delusion reinforced by a schedule of personal rewards which help to reinforcement a validity of irrationality? How are we Revolutionists to advance any Cause for good if we ourselves refuse to collaborate in the adoption of acknowledging the same premise of intent called a Cenocracy in order to begin the necessary collectivized focus in order to effect the environmental mood for directive change? The usage of the word "Cenocracy" to denote a Universal desire amongst Revolutionists is not the description of form and function, but of an intent to focus the attentions of all who know we are in desperate need of social revision. It marks a symbolic act of establishing the claim for seeking out socio-economic change the likes of which humanity has not witnessed before... because it will provide a new orientation with a grasp beyond conventionalites of personal self-centeredness or self-confining Nationalism.

Let us all join in a struggle for an improved model of change in order to collaborate on developing the design of a governance which will decisively deal with the many evils of social control through established practices of social elitism which indulge the acceptance of egotistically-defined entitlements that continue to crop up and disable the potentialities of humanity; which can be better served by collective efforts based on a realistic goal and not the vagaries of illusory indulgence presented to us by the many forms of Communistic, Democratic, and Socialistic falsifications which have been perpetrated on us by a self-serving few. Let us commit ourselves to the premise of establishing a global mood of intent for promoting the accepted standard for voicing undisclosed desires wanting a better life which presently defines living the good life based on the fundamentals established by way of practiced illusions defined as facts, but are actually exercised beliefs embraced by the reality of those who socially exist in a given environment of acceptance.

But how do we intellectually reach those whose belief system is based on an embraced content of emotion which is used as the defining criteria by which truth is judged true or false? ...By reassurance of a collaborative faith collectively spoken of despite attempts to manipulate us to accept their digressions to coincide with their manipulated mindset. Such a point need not indulge belabored alternatives, though alternative experiences may well divulge the same perception from different vantages relatively applied. You may say it as you see it, so long as the perception carries us a step closer to our goal of establishing a Cenocracy... however it may eventually be called and practiced.

In our efforts to establish a more encompassing sociological formula of applicable practice beyond philosophical conjecture, let us say we are amongst those who have looked upon the ideas of Marx, Engels and others with an intent of revising such theories into a framework of revisionism... since history has slapped such theories in the face in an attempt to wake them from the histrionics of an hysterically comical history of miscalculation. Those who have worked in the field of research known that equations can be found to have faults needing periodic revision due to a change in research techniques, available information, and a redesign of the mathematical formulas involved. A once though "Universal" idea or ideal, can later be found to be but a variable of a much larger formula... and that not all situations have a ready-made formula. Formulas are as much a creation of human effort just as the method of operation for performing a calculation. If information does not work well when subjected to a given set of operations, it is necessary to then consider a revision of the operations when viewed as a step-wise historical lineage.

Whereas an adopted mathematics operation provides for a universal consistency of though processing to achieve the same result, the operational formula was developed over time... like layered sediments covering over earlier epochs. Mathematics evolved from a long lineage of number usage and number development. Humans were not born speaking in terms of an infinitesimal calculus, unless one were to try to make a case for an underlying three-patterned alignment coinciding with a fundamental progression of thinking in terms of a 1, 2, 3 structure... despite the observed universality of a tri-modal (subject-object-verb) language usage (though not necessarily in this order). Whereas the ideas of Marx, Engels and so many others are formulas, such presumed equations are not typically constructed in a mathematical sense. They remain as "word problems" in the form of a scrambled word puzzle, making their derivation into a decipherable formula quite difficult to elucidate. The usage of a "three" model is a step closer in the direction for establishing a more clarified "scientific sociology".

Just as many social thinkers have adopted their own style for developing a more definitive type of scientific sociology, such as learning about psychology, anthropology, criminology, child development, etc., and sometimes working in different social capacities (instructor, doctor, nurse, baby sitter, counselor, advocate, etc.), the patterns which they derive from there many experiences have not provided an ample means of deducing criteria into a formula that is holistically applicable... though they may want to argue otherwise. More often than not, such theories relinquish themselves to a confinement of individuated contextual application. Whereas their idea may work in a given context for a given population, and even be applicable to other populations in different cultures, it does not address the circumstances of equilibrium requirements in a decaying environment. It is quite untypical for instructors of sociology and political science, much less psychology and anthropology to indulge in the incorporating of disparate information being collated by a reference to a number symbol for fear of being ridiculed by peers for indulging what appears to be a variation of numerology.

However, defined as a study of some occult influence on human affairs as denoted by traditional practices, is a far cry from the present usage of a number as a sequence that highlights a recurring patterned found as a recurringly basic form and functionality in non-human activity as well; describes an origin for which we are presently describing as a product of nature... a nature that is decaying and will have an effect on the various representations of form and function... with diminishing returns. Whereas many accept the proposition that Hegel's dialectic formula does represent an historically decipherable convention of human cognition to be found in various subject areas, yet an elaboration of this idea is not permitted because it is not a convention of University academics which is permitted to be "THE" standard of peer review? This is wrong-headedness, since the peer review should be amongst revolutionists both in and out of University settings. What better review than to propose a theory to be submitted to a community who may nonetheless treat the idea as Einstein was initially treated by those in a field to which he did not then belong! And it matters not if his ideas are later found to be less all-inclusive, because they served the purpose of taking the standards of physics into whole new realms of discovery.

Whereas the idea of a Cenocracy is not new, it is simply being offered from a different vantage point... a theory of Sociological Relativity... or if you prefer, a theory of a Sociological Special Relativity. We're not talking rocket science here... just rocket booster science. Sociologists and Political Scientists (and many a Revolutionist) are so caught up in sociological minutiae, they don't see themselves as exhibiting the same level of nonsense preoccupations that physicists were caught up in before Einstein provided his 1905 papers. And even though Einstein was later viewed as being a genius, it is unfortunate that this label was used as a standard which limited explorations beyond his ideas except for by a few. The public came to view him, Ford, Rockefeller, Mozart, Beethoven, and so many others not as stepping stones upon which to reach further, but as way-stations to set up camp around. The same goes for many who read Marx, Engels, Hegel and others... people set up camp around their ideas and stake a proprietary claim of homesteading ownership, even though private ownership has been formerly disallowed as a criteria of Socialist citizenry.

With respect to music, it is filled with the manipulation of sounds assigned with numbers. An eight note here, a quarter note there... sometimes aligned with an overall musical theory of triads. And if one should add to this the "testing: one, two, three" expression of a microphone and the lead - rhythm- bass trio ensemble, not too much may be made out of the correlations because they are confined to the same subject. But if we venture beyond the confines of this one subject area, we might be accused of indulging in a past time of intellectualism, because those making the accusation probably have the I.Q. of a peanut, and the self-interest level of many 30, 40 or 50 year-old adolescents. Though they may use number assignments when gambling, referring to some biblical passage, or commenting on some sports figure by noting the jersey number, the usage of numbers as points of reference abound. We see numbers on road signs, birthdates, telephone numbers, time, date, page number, product offering, tire sizes, shoe sizes, depth, height, bank accounts, etc., etc., etc... Numbers exist throughout our many individualized worlds and are used as references by which we establish patterns for aligning our behavior to and with, and of course some types of predictability.

Though Marx and Engels used number references for establishing a literary formula of chapter heading in the Communist Manifesto, other uses of enumeration were limited to word values describing one thing to another or succession of events. In other words, usage of number relationships... whether for quantity or quality, was not part of their portrayed "scientific" language. It wasn't a standard of their time and its usage today is either at one extreme or the other... too mathematical or too bound to superstition and other personalizations. If we suggest that the usage of numbers in the present context can be simplistically viewed as a recipe for creating a better sociological foundation, the usage of information from various subject areas may cause some (because of their unfamiliarity), to react to the ingredients of the recipe as if they were reading some book of ancient alchemy that causes them to be inclined towards a presumption that the author(s) were obsessed in finding an elixir of better life, turning lead into gold, or creating a variety of magical goodies... if only the right sort of incantation could be found, read in the right fashion under the right conditions by a "chosen one".

Thus, in our effort to appropriately reveal the New Abracadabra word called "Cenocracy", and from our pencil lead produce veins of revisionist gold, we look upon you Revolutionists to be our Academy of apprentices whose magic wands and broomsticks will forthwith be sent to the local garage to be tuned up, over-hauled or rebuilt as needed... That is if you will permit a bit of momentary humor to occupy this syllabus of introduction before we get down to the underlying serious study at hand.

Page Initially Created: Sunday, 21-Aug-2016... 11:27 AM
Page First posted: Monday, 22-Aug-2016... 08:32 AM Updated Page: Sunday, 18-June-2017... 7:05 AM