Let's face it, humanity has a lousy definition, accompanying practice, and analysis of peace.
Let us begin this page by a reference to early brain activity:
C Chiron, I Jambaque, R Nabbout, R Lounes, A Syrota and O Dulac
Hospital F. Joliot, Department of Medical Research, Orsay, France.
The development of functional brain asymmetry during childhood is confirmed by changes in cerebral blood flow measured at rest using dynamic single photon emission computed tomography. Between 1 and 3 years of age, the blood flow shows a right hemispheric predominance, mainly due to the activity in the posterior associative area. Asymmetry shifts to the left after 3 years. The subsequent time course of changes appear to follow the emergence of functions localized initially on the right, but later on the left hemisphere (i.e. visuospatial and later language abilities). These findings support the hypothesis that, in man, the right hemisphere develops its functions earlier than the left.
However, if there are no culturally developed ideas which favor the attributes of the left hemisphere, the attributes of the right hemisphere play more of a dominant role. Because previous pages have outlined the predominant usage of two-patterned associations with the right hemisphere and the predominant usage of three-patterned associations with the left hemisphere; it is easier to identify those ideas which may be born in the old mammal (right) brain as opposed to those being developed by the New mammal (left) brain. No doubt that in many instances there is an overlap because of a tendency to develop in accordance with a serial progression (1,2,3...), the fact that we can distinguish recurring patterns underlying thought productions, and that there is a limitation to the type and volume of patterns being used; we must at least assume that there exists an environmentally influenced biological inducement of a mental-pattern conservation taking place. But this is not to say that humanity does not have the ability (or potential) to think in more complex and voluminous types of patterns, it is just that the environment humans presently inhabit is forcing them into a conservation like a squirrel gathering nuts for an upcoming circumstances of privation... and is doing it just as unconsciously as we might assume a squirrel engages in its daily behaviors, or any number of life forms. (beavers building dams, birds building nests, bears preparing for hibernation, birds and butterflies migrating, salmon swimming upstream, etc...
The unsustainability of Peace due to recurring situations is reminiscent of a salmon trying to swim upstream, despite obstacles, because of some ingrained behavioral modality we might label as an instinct. We must assume that self-defeating efforts are a similar type of expression... because it is a behavior humanity has been taught due to the environmental circumstances of Earth. Yet, humanity has the capability of removing everyone from the planet if all nations and resources were directed towards a monumental construction project. No doubt those whose brains have become so addicted to the prevailing mind-sets of religion, economics, government, education, etc., might well react in fear to the prospect of severing the umbilical cords of their family and cultural traditions, but we must get past the two-patterned thinking which binds us to a system of thought that makes adjustments to rationalizations that help "mother earth" keep its children dependent on her for safety, security, sustenance... and as the foremost role model with behavior heading towards a certain death... and be buried with every living creature like artifacts placed into the grave of some prominent leader or citizen.
If you are one to go along with the dual processing theory nonsense based on the assumption of a two-divisioned brain organization, one can illustrate the idea with a simple mental picture of having a two-drawer filing cabinet in which representative models of singular ideas are separated for organizational purposes; yet they have inter-related configurations like a puzzle having been taken apart and put into two separate drawers based on a personalized tactical strategy of which pieces of the puzzle (corners, sides, colors, etc...) one pursues putting a given puzzle together... and makes it appear as if the rationale for doing so is valuable because some measure of money-related (or power-related, etc...) economics is attached to it. It becomes very much like a two-step yodeled school square dance with a nearby punch bowl whose contents are mixed with some alcohol which takes the place of another type of placebo-like illusion such as in the case of the phony democracy the U.S. government practices. It is but a small segment of a much larger evolutionary-based epistemology, that many contemporary evolution-Epistemologists are not even aware of because they too indulge into too much biologically-based selectivity.
The right hemisphere can cause the left hemisphere to be selective to its impressions, and exclude itself except in the form of some silent partner. The opposite is also true. For example, one may focus exclusively on the yin/yang model even though they are aware of a third "unity" complementarity... yet they never introduce the idea so as to create a three-part image; whereby others see only a two-part structure though there exists a "silent" third entity in the mind of the originator of the idea. The right hemisphere likes dualities (patterns-of-two) and the left hemisphere uses patterns-of-three but may like patterns-of-two because of its dominant presence in a given social setting. This would explain why so many people overlook the presence of patterns-of-three formulations... even though they may exist on a day to day basis without having an active consciousness in the observations of patterns-of-two either. In other words, many people neither see patterns of two or three in terms of participating in an active cataloguing thereof, though if presented with a list, they are readily familiar with some or all the examples. Likewise, a person may be intently focused on a given pattern and not see another pattern(s), thereby being unaware of a larger conceptualization of pattern availability and usage aside from cultural conventions in a given context for a given subject. For those who do come to recognize differences in brain hemisphere "occupations", they generally organize the information into a two-patterned, this side/that side grouping as shown in the following list:
|Left Brain||Right Brain|
(selective)- Looks at parts
(extracting?)- [through convergence]
Holistic- Looks at wholes
Synthesizing- [through divergence]
Information in the table originally came from this source compiled many years ago:
Like most sources of brain hemisphere attributions, the may describe logic but not give an example of it such as Major Premise- Minor Premise- Conclusion (or any of its variants). Likewise when they list language they don't tell the reader that languages throughout the world have a tri-modal structure consisting of Object- Subject- Verb (not necessarily in this order), or that language is highly dependent on hearing which, as can be seen on page 2, is considerably three-patterned.
The same goes for mathematics in that on a very basic level you take one number... add, subtract, multiply, or divide another number to get a third one. No less, when making a list of right hemisphere attributes such as music, the present of high/low pitch, major/minor scales, does not enter into the conversation. If we look at art we find light/dark contrasts, 2 versus 3 dimensions, and various other two-patterned arrangements. No less, upon arguing for the presence of patterns-of-three in such an example as music having triads, they fail to consider that this perception is due to a left hemisphere analysis of a right hemisphere attribute. In addition, when someone argues for the presence of a pattern-of-two in a left hemisphere attribute such as stating a "legal/illegal" reference of logic, they are not aware that they are imposing a right hemisphere two-patterned emotional assessment labeled as a left hemisphere attribute. In the case of law we find multiple instances of three-patterned references such as the judge and two opposing lawyers, the examination, cross-examination and re-cross-examination... not to mention one is required to "tell the truth- the whole truth- (and) nothing but the truth"... because a two-patterned referencing of truth is for some reason seen as being insufficient.
Interestingly, the situation with the usage of a jury... though the selected participators are subjected to a process enabling the attorneys to stack the deck in their favor so to speak; represent a circumstance that the conventional three-part "checks and balances" of the two lawyers and judge permit the public to participate in a judicial system that they should be involved in; just like the process of overall government as well. In the latter instance there is need for a "Peoples Legislative Branch" to effect a better practice of the Checks-and-Balances formula and have the final say on what should or shouldn't be a law, as well as being able to intervene in any and all Congressional Stalemates, Judicial interference, inter-agency bickering and mishandling of social circumstances, Executive Branch self-entitlement machinations, etc...
Three images are provided:
|Legal profile of a Checks-and-Balances model using a Will-of-the-People jury:|
|Present Checks-and-Balances model used by the government:|
|Checks-and-Balances government model utilizing a Will-of-the-People Legislative provision:|
If the above organizational formula of government was adopted, it might well be because those in the old school of thinking about government imagine themselves to have a mechanism by which their individualized control remains intact. Whereas they don't mind a three-branch "checks and balances" illusion, they want an underlying ability to transform the two-party (Republicans/Democrats) into a singular objective by having the three branches dominated by those that think along a single-party line. The same goes for those who think of the "peace/war (conflict)" dichotomy. Like two children on a teeter-totter, or sharing a swing, etc., they want a turn to be in a presumed dominant position of controlling the situation and will occasionally engage in an aggressive stance to deny the other person their opportunity... which often results in a "happy medium of socially colorful discord" (with "color" being related to variable economic or political gains and losses).
Perhaps an illustration might help some readers to understand the situation from another perspective: At present, the topic is being labeled a Peace/War (conflict) dichotomy that we can alternatively associate the labels "Additive and Subtractive", which different people from the perspective of their relative interest in peace or war in terms of money and/or power. Along with these labels some might include the non-racially intended notion of "White" for Peace and "Black" for War.
Yep, if your vision remains wholly or mostly convinced of a two-patterned processing formula, this is what you see... as an extreme representation thereof, though one or another reader might prefer some other geometric figure. However, the "colorful" variability of human thinking requires an enlarged model, such as the following image:
Alas, people become so distracted and involved with the color variations of social interaction they overlook that the core of the problem remains... namely, an insistence on the usage of dichotomization; even if it is pointed out that there are three additive and three subtractive colors corresponding to the three cones in the eye:
The point to be made is that because we can find the existence of physiological as well as biological patterns-of-three... (and other patterns), including many related to thinking formulas, an over-riding insistence on a pattern-of-two perspective suggests it is linked with a primivity of thinking associated with an early form of thinking in which early humans began to grasp number concepts and associate words with them. In the present instance, instead of singular words such as "one", "two", "many"... numerous instances of two-patterned references attached with elaborate explanatory provisions are a present day variation of this same type of simplistic thinking... which arose as part of a commercial tally and bartering sheet. For example, instead of cataloguing two sheep, two pigs, two axes, two bowls, etc... to trade for some other quantitative similarity associated with a list of other items such as two pelts, two horses, two knives, etc..., the primivity of the mental architecture is being embellished with the trappings of those skilled in making their views sound plausible; as we are sure ancient peoples holding some recognized social position would be asked to provide their interpretation of a given perception.
On the previous page it was indicated that Karl Hering challenged the three-color theory by emphasizing four colors, with the idea of a 3-to-1 ratio having never entered his mind, though the trichromatic theory is the predominant view today because the existence of three cones related to the red, blue, green colors has been verified:
When we add another dimension to an appreciation of color, we find that there are three characteristics in use:
Calculating chromaticity and luminance is a scientific method of determining a colour, but, for the rapid visual determination of the colour of objects, a colour atlas such as the Munsell Book of Color is often used. In this system colours are matched to printed colour chips from a three-dimensional colour solid whose parameters are hue, value (corresponding to reflectance), and chroma (corresponding to purity, or saturation).
Source: "Colour." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference, 2013.
However, in speaking of the eye and lenses, though not specifically about the lens of the eye, we find reference to two types (convex, concave) that can be combined:
When we add a more detailed illustration of the difference between the types of lenses, it can help clarify their usage, but does not necessarily bring to mind variations which one's imagination may design such as a wavy line, triangular shape, or various other geometric patterns:
By now, some readers may be wondering how all the examples on this page relate to a discussion about Peace, which is particularly difficult to explain to those whose mind works in very concrete ways in that they need to make connections in a one-to-one way of correspondence. Even though variabilities in two-patterned thinking have been previously mentioned, the idea that an example of two different lenses being an example of a Peace/War dichotomy is lost on them. Whereas they are thinking specifically about the words and ideas associated with Peace and War (or conflict), what is being illustrated is a type of mindset that can be transferred from one idea and applied to another setting. In other words, if a person has an unrecognized inclination to see things in groups of twos, multiple types of different information will likewise be organized to accommodate this preference... even when other patterns are nearby and should also be considered. Instead of discriminating differences, a person may well generalize information in order to better fit a given pattern.
Whereas generalization can be helpful, the generality often leads to specificity that may or may not be yet another generality. While a person can note that the words cold and hot are specific references in the context of temperature, they are only specific generalities in a larger list of other two-patterned examples; though such a list may be used by someone to suggest a specificity such as the idea of a dual process theory alternatively described in the generalized terminology of fast and slow.
From another point of view a list of multiple different types of two-patterned references collated together and used to describe an assumed specificity to human thinking processes, is only viewing such a consideration based on the sampling of two-patterned associations being used to validate a presumption. Though the examples do describe a large variety of perceptions labeled differently, and thus are named different perspectives of the same thinking (animal) with a different plumage occasioned by human variability of language set in different environmental contexts such as culture and era; the variations of the same animal (of thinking) are not being recognized as being but one species amongst several others. The different variations of dual process thinking being advanced from different perspectives is like being amongst a group of people with a central interest in a particular type of bird watching, hunting and collecting... so much so that they themselves represent a variation of the bird call (songs) they are mimicking amongst one another... though other prominent sounds are being ignored or dismissed as irrelevant to their particular bird worshipping culture.
All the economists, psychologists, philosophers, etc., who pursue an interest in the flight of such (two-patterned ideological) "birds" belong to the same clan of like-minded hunters who share in a similar extended cultural relationship where the dominant mindset is a pattern-of-two... and the dichotomy of Peace and War (conflict) is related but would appear not to be because its habits of appearance seem far removed from the environment of thought typically registered in the purview of even the most experienced and widely traveled thinkers of the bird clan who sing the same ideological song much in the manner that the Twelve days of Christmas have a preponderant interest in relating to birds, that is overlooked by many who are by tradition, aware of it. A pattern-of-two (dual processing theory) is a song with a chorus that has become a favorite because of the culture it has produced, and not because it is of a solely definitive representation of human thinking processes.
In the Twelve days of Christmas line-up we have One partridge, two turtle doves, three French hens, four calling birds, six geese a laying, and seven swans a swimming. Clearly there was an obsession with birds whomever wrote the song... or there was a cultural obsession having birds as a primary staple. But let us not forget that Noah had his bird and so did Edgar Allen Poe with his Raven. There are both National and State birds as well as those protected due to a threat of extinction. The Mormons have their seagulls and the ancient mariner his albatross. And let us not forget that the British at one time referred to girls as birds; which was not carried over into Australia where girls are referred to as sheilas... a term some identify with a large feline... of which all are not domesticated as noted by the preference for having long decorated claws.
Yet, we might well be remiss if we were to omit including one of the first philosophical dilemmas posed to some children with respect to the arrival of a new baby by way of a stork. And this very short list doesn't include humanity's attempt at using machines to mimic bird flight nor the perspective of many that Congress is shaped like a big bird cage in which bird brains squawk mimicked public phrases as if to give the impression they are just as human and can therefore empathize with the plight of the many experiencing privation.. In short, the lowly bird has been entrusted as a symbol to describe varying philosophies perhaps having begun by asking what came first the chicken or the egg, or why the chicken crossed the road. Thus, animal activists should be fighting for the rights of birds to have the Constitution amended so that they might enjoy their civil rights not to be exploited by various philosophers. Birds have a right to their own Personhood and should not be singled out when someone is angered at another whereby they "flip them the bird"!... unless of course bird activists are chicken and prefer instead to use 'fowl' language.
With respect to birds and variation being used as a metaphor to describe an underlying thinking pattern (of two) being related to the two-patterned idea of peace/war as being of a similar species of thought that is not recognized because generalities and specificities become confused and subjected to conservative outlines of discussion in order to fit within the limited scope of experience and knowledge of so-called experts on thinking; let us look at a chart detailing variations of the same type of bird that would not necessarily be recognized by the casual or even expert observer if their perspective was otherwise directed upon cataloging the specifics of another generality and thus overlooked the fact that there was a larger family resemblance. Specifically, the peace/war dichotomy is part of an adaptive radiation of two-patterned thinking born in a given environment, and different environments have produced adaptive variabilities of different species of thought such as a pattern-of-three due to the complex of biology, environment and evolution:
It is well known that adaptive variations occur in language, and that many people are as well aware that ideas change over time in that they may be adapted to different circumstances and thus acquire a neologism (new word) to describe an old occurrence appearing in a different context at a different time period through the ideas of someone who may be less or more intelligent, experienced or inclined to perceive similarly occurring events from a creative perspective of application to something than that customarily thought of. Yet, even though many of the examples used to describe variations of the purported "dual process" thinking come from different places and different time periods, the volume of examples becomes interpreted to solidify an inclination to think that what presumes they have uncovered about thinking is something quite new... particularly when it is further applied to a context in which some pecuniary value is attached; instead of viewing the whole of the presentation as a mere variable in a larger cognitive setting involving other patterns as well.
But let's look at this in a non-traditional way by taking the above circularly arrayed bird variations chart and view the birds as if they represented variations of two-patterned thinking:
In a sense, the current "Peace/War" perspective of practiced activity is but a "bird of a feather that flocks together" with other two-patterned ideas of the same mental genre. Peace can not advance to something substantial and sustainable so long as it is connected with an underlying association to commercial interests of economy. Like Capitalism, both peace and war (conflict) are used as bartering mechanisms for some frivolous, momentary social gain... though they label and define their application of emotionality thus applied, as something of gargantuan importance that is unrecognized as a symbolic variation of their own ego ideal.
This is extremely problematic since it suggests that humanity is in a situation where peace and war (conflict) are to be cyclical events to be embraced as one does the changing seasons according to the overall scope of one's age, experiences, knowledge, intelligence, wisdom and individualized biological functioning in which the event occurs; and thus must be forever interpreted, assessed, and valued on an individual basis... like one's culturally accepted definitions of truth, beauty, love, justice, liberty, freedom, wealth and various other social commodities of a given functional vernacular. As such, a global peace can not be (relatively) achieved unless a global culture practices a similar definition thereof. Then again, the word "peace" may be referring to a condition which is mis-defined, and therefore to be continually unachievable within the scope of the definition unless it is continued in its present formula of individuation.
However, aside from all the variables one might apply to detail other considerations in the discussion of Peace, if we somehow did arrive at a global definition and application of that definition, it is unlikely that it too could be sustained for long because conditions on Earth are deteriorating and will required "rationalized adjustments" to the definition thereof, or... those not wanting to practice any formula of peace which does not present them with an opportunity for making a profit will attempt to create circumstances to which a globally recognized definition can not be appended.