— Page 1 —
Democracy, like Communism and Socialism, are not only classifications, but they are both systems of classification independently and collectively. But so are other ideas such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Satanism, Astrology, Wicca, "New Age" orientations and various other (legal, artistic, musical, academic) philosophies. And they are all distinctive prejudices and discriminations... despite any claims towards openness, diplomacy, and tolerance based on semantics that become "semanticized" by adherents; just as one might use sentimentality to proffer an opinion they claim is of greater value because of some presumed ownership to an ideal that another might interpret to be a romanticized appeal to stray from rationality.
For example, a "well rounded" education is a phrase that inaccurately describes all the corners one may cut because of culturally definable dispositions based on unrecognized preferences and embraced antagonisms. All such aforementioned philosophies incorporate the practice of political myths involving propriety to achieve personal gains under the guise of more lofted goals that are often exercised as illusions of a greater ideal— that may be achievable; but not necessarily sought after by any practical effort. To do so would disrupt the advantages acquired by a few at the expense of the many who defer their own interests according to some presumed idea of good shared by all who neither care to equally share nor defer; yet they want all to feel an obligation to their belief and make whatever sacrifices are necessary to perpetuate the practiced traditions. Such beliefs breed the prejudice of a practiced slavery... like those of old who accepted their role in terms of a patriotic duty as cannon fodder when they charged headlong into a cannonade embattlement... all the while their superiors gave themselves the entitlement of awarding medals of gallantry as they were tossed into an unmarked grave.
Prejudices and discriminations can be effectively used modes of propaganda to effect the conditions by which underlying motives and ambitions need not be concealed beneath facades of morality and idealizations of fairness. As the real intentions become more apparent, the illusions fall away and the people are left with the realization that the standards of belief to which they participated in as representations of progress and enlightened intelligibility... are false gods that lead many to denounce them. They come to be seen as artificialized perfumes used to conceal the stench in which human consciousness still wallows in; and yet has the capacity to remove itself from... thus becoming the new fragrance fashioned into a mold to be used as the avowed ornament for a future age that must make room for humanity's departure from this dark cave called Earth set adrift in a whirlpool called the Milky Way galaxy whose rotational precipice places the Earth like a hillbilly shack in a forest lined with wild pig trails. The aforementioned prejudices and discriminations are little more than emotionally contoured mental survival tools and our brains are the tool boxes created by the interests of a given culture in a given environment... be it wet, dry, windy, rainy, snowy, jungle, desert, forest, seaside, or whatever.
The current designs of government, however one may title them (Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Plutocracy, etc.,), are crude expressions of their more purer selves. While they may be cast into the framework of being called a particular kind of tool, they retain some level of malleability... like an adjustable wrench or slip-lock/vice-grip pliers, but are none-the-less constrained by the applied description and accompanying design. Interpreted as flexible trees able to bend in most winds of (cultural/political) change, all of them can be toppled over given the appropriate circumstances. Though many conventional tools are sometimes used by different individuals in unintended creative ways, the majority retain a mind-set to use a particular tool in a particular way. The same goes for any philosophy. It is difficult to alter the momentum of a nation to redefine the political ideology under which the citizenry think they live, in order to adopt a new orientation and direction... even if the old (present) direction is headed for a cliff. And if one announces that all such philosophies to which ceremony and ritual have been applied are headed for a cliff, the general interpretation may decide to interpret this as but another flavor of doom-saying. Nonetheless, let this page stand as a placard on an internet street corner.
But in using the terms "prejudice" and "discrimination", it is necessary to enlist the word "selective" as a preferred definition thereof, in order to indulge in an attempt to at least try to minimize a reader's suggestion that the current page reflects an axe-wielding ogre affixed with a mad dog gaze... Grrrrrrrrrr. In other words, though Democracy is prejudicial towards adopting an Actual Democratic practice, one need not be prejudicially negative or derogatory... even though the language used in the description may make the discussion about Democracy's prejudice towards itself appear one-sided— and though this writer will attempt to conceal their biases so as to attempt some objective representation... however humorous some readers may think such a position may be. In short, the present practices of Democracy are expressions of an underlying prejudice against Democracy portraying an Actual representation of itself. (Like a plastic spoon pretending to have the "virility" of a wooden or metal spoon). Democracy is being kept from being its actual self, and only being allowed to reveal itself in shadows... as a poor imitation of itself based on the superficial interests of those in authority whose lives are marked by varying compliances to observed cultural speciousness.
Present political practices are phony representations of their truer selves. Like children playing dress-up with adult clothes... they are imitations derived from perceptions based on experience and cumulative appreciation. The combinations of different pants, shirts, jackets, socks, hats, shoes... and the like, are similar to the different mixtures which any given political ideology may dress-up as. For example, Democracy may rely on some expressions of Communism and Socialism, though we can see variations of Monarchial and dictatorial doctrines as well (such as in classroom settings). Yet viewing society as an amalgamation of different sources of human behavior (natural events and diseases being undefined herein as influencers thereof), is not a new idea; but this realization is no longer the purview of a long list of elite thinkers as it once was. Their once progressive ideas shared amongst their peers is now more commonplace, no doubt due to the advent of increased literacy.
|
For an example of an elitist thinker: The French political theorist Montesquieu (Jan. 18, 1689 - Feb. 10, 1755), [Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu] through his masterpiece The Spirit of the Laws (1748), strongly influenced his younger contemporary Rousseau and many of the American Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Rejecting Aristotle's classification, Montesquieu distinguishes three ideal types of government:
According to Montesquieu, a necessary condition for the existence of a republican government, whether democratic or aristocratic, is that the people in whom supreme power is lodged possess the quality of “public virtue,” meaning that they are motivated by a desire to achieve the public good. Although public virtue may not be necessary in a monarchy and is certainly absent in despotic regimes, it must be present to some degree in aristocratic republics and to a large degree in democratic republics. Sounding a theme that would be loudly echoed in Madison's Federalist 10, Montesquieu asserts that without strong public virtue, a democratic republic is likely to be destroyed by conflict between various “factions,” each pursuing its own narrow interests at the expense of the broader public good. Source: ["Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.] |
Part of the wardrobe cited and used by early "social" (political, etc... philosophical) thinkers, was the concept of class. Whereas the archeological divisions of cultures by "Age" entailed such notions as Stone Age, Bronze (copper/tin) Age, Iron Age, etc., which helped to to classify divisions of cultural activity over long expanses of time; social thinkers began an analysis of society in terms of differentiating social activities with the aid of labels with a very broad application, influenced by those who had already been using systems of classification in their subject areas of interest. One such modern method was to describe society in terms of an Upper, Middle and Lower class. And interestingly, the philologist and mythologist Georges Dumezil (initiated by others before him), used a sociological approach to the analysis of Indo-European gods and the associated Socio-religious structures of Indo-European groups, though his usage of a Priestly-regal, Warrior, and Producer (craftsman/cultivators) delineation was previously identified in Plato's Republic with the arrangement of Philosophers, Warriors and Producers.
Theories of social class were fully elaborated only in the 19th century as the modern social sciences, especially sociology, developed. Political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discussed the issues of social inequality and stratification, and French and English writers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries put forth the idea that the nonpolitical elements in society, such as the economic system and the family, largely determined a society's form of political life. This idea was taken farther by the French social theorist Henri de Saint-Simon, who argued that a state's form of government corresponded to the character of the underlying system of economic production. Saint-Simon's successors introduced the theory of the proletariat, or urban working class, as a major political force in modern society, directly influencing the development of Karl Marx's theory of class, which has dominated later discussion of the topic. Contemporary theories of class Subsequent theories of class have been chiefly concerned with revising, refuting, or providing an alternative to Marxism. Early in the 20th century, German Sociologist Max Weber questioned the importance of social classes in the political development of modern societies, pointing out that religious mores, nationalism, and other factors played significant roles. Weber proposed limiting the concept of class to impersonal income distinctions between groups, thereby distinguishing class from social status, collectivities, or political hierarchies. But the Marxian emphasis on the importance of class conflict—i.e., on the conflict and struggle between the classes for control of the means of production—has been the most controversial issue dividing social theorists in their analysis of class structure. Many opponents of Marxist theory have focused attention on the functional interdependence of different classes and their harmonious collaboration with each other. And indeed, by the late 20th century it seemed undeniable that the classes in capitalist societies had tended to lose their distinctive character, while the antagonism between them had declined to such an extent that in most economically advanced countries it no longer produced serious political conflict. Moreover, Marxism's prediction of the proletariat's successful revolution against the bourgeoisie and its replacement of the capitalist system with a classless society have rung increasingly hollow in light of the dismal record of most 20th-century Marxist governments and their wholesale collapse from internal causes between 1989 and 1991. Finally, some Sociologists have concluded that gradations in social and economic status are continuous in Western societies, which suggests that class boundaries have grown less distinct. Despite controversies over the theory of class, there is general agreement among social scientists on the characteristics of the principal social classes in modern societies. Sociologists generally posit three classes: upper, working (or lower), and middle... Source: ["Social Class." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.] |
It is easy to understand how social thinkers might well ascribe a system of class-ification to their interests, since thinkers on broader biological subjects had developed a means of classification now known as animal taxonomy. Generally speaking, systems of classification have been adopted using hierarchical formulas of contrast such as top to bottom, rich to poor, strong to weak, smart to dumb, dominant to recessive, large to small, higher to lower, etc., frequently providing gradations between two polar positions.
For example, Carolus Linnaeus (May 23, 1707- Jan. 10, 1778), presented a hierarchical classification, or taxonomy, of the three kingdoms of nature: Stones, Plants, and Animals. Each kingdom was subdivided into classes, orders, genera, species, and varieties. This hierarchy of taxonomic ranks replaced traditional systems of biological classification that were based on mutually exclusive divisions, or dichotomies. Linnaeus's classification system has survived in biology, though additional ranks, such as families, have been added to accommodate growing numbers of species. Source: ["Linnaeus, Carolus." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.]
Here is a modern description thereof:
As an example of an idea... about the idea concerning progressive development, though the changes were not designated classes, the work of Ernst Haeckel (Feb. 16, 1834 - Aug. 9, 1919) can be used as a reference illustrating a comparative modeling approach. (notice he used a three-patterned format designated by the Roman Numerals I, II, III). Let us start with a short introduction followed by an image:
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. Source: [Chapter 4, page 66, Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1976] Note: A modern review of Haecke's work denoted by the phrase: is actually more accurate when it is described as: |
Modern biology, following the lead of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel and the American biologists Herbert F. Copeland and Robert H. Whittaker, has now thoroughly abandoned the two-kingdom plant-versus-animal dichotomy. Haeckel proposed three kingdoms when he established “Protista” for microorganisms. Copeland classified the microorganisms into the Monerans (prokaryotes) and the Protoctista (which included fungi with the rest of the eukaryotic microorganisms). His four-kingdom scheme (Monera, Protoctista, Animalia, and Plantae) had the advantage of clearly separating microbes with nuclei (Protoctista) from those without (Monera: the prokaryotes—that is, the bacteria and archaea) and of distinguishing the two embryo-forming groups—plants and animals—from the rest of life. Whittaker, on ecological grounds, raised the fungi to kingdom status. The modified Whittaker five-kingdom classification system is perhaps the most comprehensible and biologically based way to unambiguously organize information about all groups of living beings. American microbiologist Carl Woese has offered still another classification scheme, in which all organisms are placed in either the Archaea (prokaryotes that include some salt lovers, acid lovers, and methane producers), the Bacteria (all other prokaryotes, including obligate anaerobic bacteria as well as photosynthetic and chemoautotrophic bacteria), or the Eukarya (all eukaryote forms of life). Woese's scheme is based on molecular biological criteria that focus on the RNA sequence of morphological factors to classify new or disputed organisms. Although Woese's three-domain system is very popular, a potential problem with it is that RNA, one characteristic among thousands, does not consistently correlate with many others. Source: ["life." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.]
In some systems for classifying all of life, the archaea constitute one of three great domains of living creatures. In 1977 American microbiologist Carl Woese, on the basis of analyses of ribosomal RNA, proposed that the prokaryotes, long considered to be a single group of organisms (essentially, the bacteria), actually consist of two separate lineages. Woese called these two lineages the eubacteria and the archaebacteria. These names were subsequently changed to bacteria and archaea (the archaea being distinctly different from bacteria), but Woese's splitting of the prokaryotes into two groups has remained, and all living organisms are now considered by many biologists to fall into one of three great domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. Further molecular analysis has shown that domain Archaea consists of two major subdivisions, the Crenarchaeota and the Euryarchaeota, and two minor ancient lineages, the Korarchaeota and the Nanoarchaeota. Source: ["Archaea." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.]
The use of agreed upon systems of classification can aid in the discussion of related ideas and help to formulate shared areas of interest in order to combine resources for further examination and research. No doubt that present day classification systems came by a similar route of brain development when humans began to develop the usage of a ledger in which to tally the loss and gain of enumerated objects such as animals, weapons, money and the like. Hence, we can identify an underlying reference to accounting activity: Categorization (one -to- one correspondence), Taxonomy (sets), and tabulation (linear itemization). This goes back to the primitive development of naming (number) quantity. Regardless of what culture, there is a three-part developmental orientation to use a language equivalent word for the quantity one, and then the quantity two, with any larger quantity referred to as "many". Hence, there were, for a time in different cultures with respect to the maturation of their number usage... three number words... or at least this is what historians of mathematics have written about. This same usage of a "three" quantity to define a given set, is retained in the usage of a comma to represent a point of demarcation when assigning the quantity of one thousand. We align (ones - tens - hundreds) to be separated by a comma before beginning a new set-of-three (thousands - ten thousands - hundred thousands)... and so forth. Sets can have subsets which in turn may have their own subsets.
But this "three" reference can just as easily be problematic as are any number of ideas, since it encourages others into making observations based on accepted models of thinking that can influence perception. Even though a person may disagree with a given orientation as it is described, they may nonetheless use the same pattern with different labels... thereby using but not acknowledging the 'prejudice' (proclivity) to do so. Hence, not only is Democracy prejudiced about perpetuating itself, but also keep itself from obtaining a full-blown expression of an underlying ability. A mutation of itself is projected onto the foreground and the surrounding (social/governing) environment is kept as it is in order to insure no evolution takes place. In a way, Democracy acts like an infectious viral agent seeking symbiotic dominance... or like DNA, RNA and Proteins; co-existing in multiple life forms. Democracy shows up in different formulas in different cultural/environmental settings, as do Communism and Socialism... each of which may be crude representations of more fundamental biological constituents that are subjected to change. Like the three families of fundamental (physics) particles, (Stable, Partially-Unstable, Unstable); different forms of government can be categorized associatively.
And let us not overlook more creative applications of classification using inherent progressive delineations such as might be viewed when looking at the three geometric forms of line, circle and triangle (or knife, fork and spoon). For example, when one looks at trees, there is an identifiable "linear" outline with respect to trees found nearer to sea level such as the coconut palm and bananna trees; followed by "circular-like" fruit trees such as the apple and cherry; with higher elevations sprouting a distinctive display of "triangular-shaped" (Christmas tree) conifers, where we can find the pine nut amongst them. However, not all of the following examples may be interpreted as representing progressive developments. They are nonetheless illustrative of an attempt to describe a three-patterned transition.
Here are a few examples of Linear, Circular, Triangular expressions:
| "3" Basics Formula | Linear | Circular | Triangular |
| 3 galaxy/universe items | Our galaxy through space | Motion of galaxy | Expansion/Contraction {<>,X} |
| 3 basic Earth motions | Earth+Moon+Sun | Rotation of Earth | Precession of Earth's axis |
| 3 forms of matter | Liquid | Solid | Gas |
| 3 fundamental forces | (N)electro-magnetism(S) | Gravity | Nuclear (+)(-)(+/-) |
| 3 conceptual models: A dual form of singularity A circular form of duality A plurality of threeness |
Primitive (Singularity) |
Native American (Duality)
|
Indo-European (Trianguality)
|
| 3 (hair) cross-sections | African: ribbon-like | Asian: circular | Caucasian: ellipsoid |
| 3 Earth shapes | Earth is flat | Earth is round | Earth is a triaxial ellipsoid |
| 3 Universe theories | Universe is flat | Spherical | Saddle (triangular)-shaped |
| 3 physics ideas | String theory | Particle theory | Multi-dimensional theory |
| 3 stone tool shapes | Mono-facial | Bi-facial | Tri-facial (arrow heads) |
| 3 counting objects | Lines (on bones, rocks, etc.) | Pebbles, stones, (clay,etc.) | Cones (wedges) |
| 3 engineering tools | Lever | Pulley/Wheel | Fulcrum |
| 3 engine shapes | In-line, Slanted, etc... | Radial, Rotary | V-shaped |
| 3 shapes game | Paper (flat-linear) | Rock (round-circular) | Scissors (X-shaped/triangular) |
| 3 human face items | Eyebrows | Eyes | Nose |
| When we look at the faces carved on pumpkins during the Halloween season, we see a repeated and interchangeable usage of linear, circular and triangular eyes, mouth, and nose. Not to mention that most pumpkins have a circular shape, most knives have a linear shape, and that some readers may use an argument suggesting a "triangular" opposition to explain this example way. (Thinking in terms of a triangular relationship that always results in conflict.) | |||
| 3 playground items | Monkey bars/See-saw | Merry-go-round | Slide/Swing-set support |
| 3 in-vehicle views | Road, Stick shift, etc... | Steering wheel | Perceptual view of distance |
| 3 early industry tools | Staff, Poker | Pottery wheel, Kiln | Fire (flame), Bellows |
| 3 pre-industry tools | Stick | Rock | Fire (flame) |
| 3 cyanobacteria shapes | Filamentous (string-like) | Coccoidal (ball-like) | Ellipsoidal (egg-shaped) |
| 3 stromatolite shapes | Flat-layered | Domical/Columnar | Conical |
| 3 building structures | Skyscrapers | Coliseums Stadiums,etc. |
Pyramids |
| 3 foot descriptions | Heal to Toe line | Balls of feet | Arch of foot |
| 3-in-1 necktie forms | Fronts-piece covers buttons | Encircles the neck | Triangle slip knot |
| 3-in-1 washing machine cycle status symbols Speed Queen Commercial washer Model # SWT91QN |
 In Use (vertical line) |
Spin (circular "curlicue") |
Rinse (triangular water shape) |
| 3 bird-flight formations | Diagonal, Horiz., Vertical | "Bunched up" | V-shaped (also J/L/7 variations) |
Note: I used the symbols {><} and {X} to portray expansion and contraction. Did the Universe expand like a bursting ball in all directions or a selected direction? It is not certain if the "Big Bang" occurred at a single point and then expanded in all directions. Unless we care to consider that our Universe is the result of an implosion, which is 1 idea, then there are 3 other theories we can consider, which brings our overall formula to a 3:1 ratio. The other three being a Linear- Circular- Triangular expansion after the Big Bang. Also, if the expansion is slowing down, is there to be an eventual "Big Crunch?"
(Source for above line, circle, triangle information: → Introduction Page 3C ←)
Though this page is denoted as Democracy being Prejudiced against itself, we can easily add Communism and Socialism to it and thus create a three-patterned set, where some sociological perspectives suggest that Communism is the highest form of social order, Socialism is below it, and Democracy is the least desirable:
- Prejudiced against itself having any competition (from other governing systems).
- Prejudiced against itself evolving beyond its present characteristics.
- Prejudiced against itself acknowledging its own prejudices.
In all three cases each governing system acts to minimize the occasion for the prejudice to surface to the top of social identification. Nonetheless, prejudice and discrimination creep into the fray of discussion and resulting social beliefs without being recognized as having occurred. For all the good that the word "Democracy" may suggest to many, they may be unable to recognize the presence of its prejudicial activity... or even deliberately conceal the activity from being accurately identified.
Also, when taking stock of different systems of organization from different fields of study, even though the foregoing focused primarily on biologically-based examples of classification; many people overlook the inclination towards a reduced quantity of categories, where a large quantity of items (occupations) are lumped into a single container like toys going into a "toy box" (and not some box with a different label, though the boxes may be identical in appearance)... with a "three" pattern showing up quite frequently as we move forward from past to present history. And though we might want to say that the three classes of society (upper, middle, lower) are generalities used to enhance the visibility of considerations that would otherwise remain indistinct; are we inclined to disregard them as a collective representation of a more fundamental biological imperative that we should be concerned with regarding our overall discussion about governance?
In other words, the three general social classes, when taken together as a specificity of thinking... represent the existence of an underlying influence which can be identified as being more basic than human society itself. It is therefore an extension, albeit a crude one, of a pattern that can be recognized in human anatomy:
Yet, this recurrence of a "three" pattern is itself problematic, just as is our proclivity to use any classification system since its usage indicates a commonality of thought processing that may be more than just a "monkey see, monkey do" behavior. For example, there is wide-spread agreement that the color of the sky is blue, and grass is often green (depending on what grass is being viewed), yet it is seldom acknowledge that such distinctions were made up. If someone were to say another color or use another word (or simply use a gesture without sound), their adoption of such might be reason to call their sanity into question. In other words, an agreed upon perspective can act as a type of accepted and expected brain-washing. For example, the coining of a new word such as "Cenocracy" to represent an old idea such as a "New Government" could be perceived more as a foreign language than the introduction to a new perspective in thinking about governing structure involving the past, present and future.
Thus we must ask, do the labeled systems actually exist, or do we simply imagine them to exist? Do the "threes" in our anatomy actually exist, or do we only think they do? Are we on the third planet from the Sun, or do we only think we are? Does DNA and RNA actually have triplet coding systems, or do we only think they do? Do Communism, Democracy and Socialism actually exist, or do we only think they do, and they (we) would be better off if we labeled them differently?
If we all agree that the color of the sky is pink, then this would be the denoted acceptance of reality, but it doesn't really mean the sky is pink, whatever the words "pink" and "sky" might mean separated from our human usage thereof; or if they can have meaning other than that to which we ascribe to them. But such philosophical considerations can bog down most readers who want some point to be made about classification systems and its relationship to the title of this page. For them, it may not be enough to say that "agreement" can be an illustration of both prejudice and discrimination. In order for them to lean in such a direction, they need to be more involved in the discussion from different perspectives because the examples thus far are not easily transferable to their interests through which they derive comprehension. As such, let me take a step back before plodding forward:
The afore-mentioned tri-partite class divisioning profile, when viewed as a type of three-piece suit in our contemporary sociological wardrobe of thinking; is being overlooked as an observed "professional" dress-code, or linguistic inflection for thinking. It is a type of "vernacular of conceptualization" that we might otherwise label as a jargon or metaphorically depict as a three-button vest where all the buttons must be fastened because it is socially correct to do so.. If a person doesn't use some manner of a three-part organizational methodology, regardless of labels, then they might not be readily understood or accepted into the prevailing sociological clan that uses "threes", one of which is the taken-for-granted usage of a period, question mark or exclamation point for all sentences. In other words, our thinking is constrained to play in a sand box where a three-patterned organizational preference is an unknown fee being paid to be a member of the group. In other words, it is not understood as a "thought processing dress-code" unless one is cognizant of the many instances in which a "three" organization is used in different subjects. For some examples of its many applications:
Different people may use different combinations of subjects and argue that a "threes" formula is relevant because it is inherent in the material or that it is just a convenient means of description. But if it actually represents something that is being overlooked, such that when describing Communism, Democracy and Socialism as three dominant socio-political concepts; they too are echoes, are shadows that must be coherently defined in order to acquire a greater comprehension of Sociology beyond it present immaturity. The very label "Sociology" defines a mode of thinking that inhibits thinking outside the conventions of contemporary inclinations to focus on as presented by academic settings.
By permitting ourselves to indulge in the usage of the three social classes denoted as Upper, Middle and Lower, some readers will overlook the close resemblance to the three-part (tripartite) assemblage in the Christian idea concerning a Trinity: Father (Upper class: God), Son (Middle class: next to God), Holy Spirit/Ghost (Lower class: the unseen, invisible poor, homeless, down-trodden, disenfranchised...).
Let us view the Trinitarian Concept as an early Sociological examination that combined three separate "Functionalities" (or occupations/"preoccupations") of early Christian theorists trying to amalgamate three separate concerns and considerations as discussed in the following article:
Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. Source: ["Trinity." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.] |
Date of initial Creation: Sunday, December 13, 2015 3:03 AM
Date of initial Posting: Saturday, 16-Jan-2016 02:08 PM