Cenocracy: A Declaration for Greater Independence
The U.S. is Against Equality
(One of Humanity's many Hypocrisies)


The notion of equality assigned to individuals is problematic because of the various types of measurement which become representative of a given business, government or religious model used as an organizational methodology to direct the interaction of multiple individuals. Excuses are typically made and presented as justifiable reasons in the form of some presumed "higher", "more important", or "greater" purpose that permits the inclusion and/or exclusion of one or more individuals from getting the same or measurable similarity in a substituted form of defined equality. For example, an actual or pretended crisis or lesser development of a previous common occurrence may be used to deny one or more from getting their perceived to be fair share. Typically, there are a few who persistently get a lion's share of a given resource, followed by a pecking order of lesser and lesser quantities given to defined subordinates.

Present practices of Democracy address the question of equality by using a hierarchically arranged process of redistribution, though those who are getting several shares above most others tend to hoard their shares into a developed surplus, just as the government does so that it can selectively choose who, when, where, why, how and how much is to be received. The majority is expected to pay for the larger share of what is to be redistributed and those who get a larger share, and are permitted to hoard it, want to provide for less of that to be redistributed according to social policies that routinely show themselves to be inadequate, inefficient, and are only marginally effective. The system of collection and redistribution are not based on a democracy, but a moving-target aristocracy made up of a plutocratic [the wealthy] (or oligarchic [the few]). ()

Present practices of Socialism address the question of equality by expecting more people to get a larger share of the collected resources, but are as yet unwilling to comprehensively contemplate the realty of diminishing resources and the need to ensure the redistribution remains viable by protecting it within a costly sphere that will effectively insulate it from those who are not part of the system and want to disrupt it as a means of being able to advance their own selective views that expects everyone else to accept them; such as terrorists, Bad Capitalists (as opposed to Good Capitalists that want a society to prosper), and those whose mental state cause them to be anti-social. Current practices of Socialism are difficult to sustain because of conflicting ideologies the world over. Thus, equality suffers both for the individual and the overall group because of an unrealistic expectation of a continued high standard of resource redistribution that is not reduced by other pressing societal needs that can not be addressed by the whole of a nation because the people are not permitted to be actively involved in the larger processes of government. They can not possibly give their assent to a reduction in social services if they are not aware of a need for an alteration to address an unforeseen or eventually realized circumstance that requires a timely (abrupt) reallocation of redistributed wealth. Current models of Socialism fail to address the need for acquiring public approval to make a sacrifice that they can themselves monitor to insure compliance and find practical solutions.

Present practices of Communism such as are seen in military organizations that must be supported by either a democracy or socialism(!), like all projected future ones, like to describe equitable redistribution in terms of what a person needs as opposed to what they simply want, yet the definition of need receives a deflected dismissiveness by describing scenarios which simplistically involve a single person and not an entire nation of millions. In describing a person's need, a decision has to be made as to what will suffice to address the need. But what do we do when one or more individuals (working alone or in concert) machinate a situation to produce that which will enable them to acquire what they want (based on some supposed grand communistic definition of need that never is quite detailed in Communist literature), but thus claim their want that is promoted by a contrived circumstance, to be an absolute need... whereby they can further announce it to be a "Communistically appropriate necessary equality"? Because Communism is unable to stand on its own two feet, so to speak, its viability of being able to accurately, adequately, and honestly redistribute resources (wealth) in an equitable manner because it cannot sustain production to produce the necessary levels of surplus that are required to initiate a life-style that is as unrealistic as thinking humanity can produce a garden of Eden on Earth... a planet in a solar system and galaxy heading along a course of decay.

When discussing the situation in which the U.S. government is against equality, a reference to an American historical event is instructive: Abraham Lincoln's premiere interest was in keeping the Union intact with or without the institution of slavery. Similarly, the United States government could care less whether the citizenry has equality or not... just so long as it can remain solvent. Like so many other governments the world over, providing an equal redistribution of collected resources (such as monetary wealth) is not a primary concern or interest. While the present era of political reality makes providing the public with some measure of poorly defined equality, it can at least claim it is making an effort... and excuses itself from trying to improve its efforts by simply stating the system isn't perfect.

The U.S. government's practice of equality isn't perfect, and nor is its practice of democracy; but then again, it is not trying to become perfect at such practices because this would leave less resources for a few... A few who are permitted by law to exploit the many so that they can hoard large stores of wealth like ancient Pharaohs whose granaries were stuffed full while people starved, and the people of Ireland needlessly suffered during the potato famine even though large commodities of food were shipped from Ireland to England under the desperately hungry eyes of people dying alongside the road. If the U.S. can increase its level of personal profit as a dominant entity on the world stage of governments without equality... it will do so. But if the social atmosphere requires it to exhibit the pretense of practicing a measure of equality, then it will do this instead. The U.S. government like so many other governments the world over, only care about equality in as much as it serves the purpose of claiming some superiority.

Nor does the U.S. like democracy, because democracy is the striving to practice a greater equality. And the same goes for those who advocate Communism, Socialism, Anarchy, Libertarianism, etc., to include every single religion and life-philosophy such as Buddhism. For example, if you read the account of someone advocating an interest in Communism, their script may well use the approach of a fiscal examination of different economic systems such as comparing a presumed Communist or Socialist- oriented society with that of a Capitalist one... of which China's economy might be contrasted with India's, as Gennady Ermak did in his book entitled "Communism: The Great Misunderstanding". It is a reading selection which, again and again praises the supposed SUPERIOR qualities of a Communism compared to those who practice either a Capitalism or Socialism. He does not speak of a superior equality as the foremost desirable attribute, though if asked, he may say it's implied. But in any case, those who advocate either a Communism or Socialism or Democracy, advance the notion of superiority and not equality. And the same goes for religion and business.

Such thinking is little different than those who profess that Islam or Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism, etc., are superior. If anyone of them were to speak in terms of having a greater equality, discussions with others in different religions might well disagree with them and say that their god is superior and therefore their whole belief system is better. In other words, it is a childish game of one-upmanship. A sort of verbal arms race that apparently is an ongoing practice in every society as evidenced by those who either brag out loud or silently to themselves, that they have a superior job, house, business, vehicle, wardrobe, etc... Instead of boasting one has more money, is stronger, faster or smarter, one adopts the advocacy of a given perspective to hoist about and claim some superiority.

Beliefs are not meant to proclaim a position of equality, unless the position can also be claimed as a superior position of equality. Instead of a people saying that their one god amongst many other gods is greater, one can proclaim loud and long enough that their one god is superior to all others. Instead of saying one can sing better, dance better, has more money, talent or genius... one can project one's inclination to boast of a desired superiority onto a sports team, employment position, the neighborhood one lives in, or the citizenship one holds. Or one can wear a uniform, carry a gun, display a badge or adopt a three-lettered symbol such as FBI, CIA, USA, etc., as an extension of some implied superiority. No less, one can be on the radio, television, a movie or theatrical production.

Yet, all in all, these everyday occurrences are a stark reminder that humanity does not seek to practice equality and that inequality can not adequately be measured by the lack of such unless they socially demanded cultural necessities. For example, such as "needing" a cell phone because the presence of public phones are few and far between (or non-existent), that one "needs" a vehicle to get to work or to a store because they are too far from where one lives and public transportation is inadequate or non-existent, and one "needs" either a computer, television or radio to keep abreast of news information as part of an established medium required for maintaining a minimum consciousness of social events, etc... But neither can inequality be measured by a comparison of paychecks between fellow workers since variations may be due to work performance evaluations or how a particular person is viewed as a valuable member of participating in a workplace environment where a particular kind of sociability is not an established item of a job description because management is not conscious of how such behavior plays an undefined pertinence.

If the U.S. wasn't against equality, it would insure that everyone had the same wage and social benefits because all jobs would be viewed as having the same relevance for maintaining the functionality of the society and was not some useless expression of keeping a citizen busy and promotes feelings of less worthiness or total worthlessness as a contributing member of society. However, the problem is that humans are not equal. We are all uniquely different even if one is not practiced in the ability to detect individual qualitative differences. And even when we strive for equality, for example, one person may receive a different type of health care treatment from the same physician, because people change over time... even short periods of time. For example, a doctor feeling good for the first ten patients they see may go to lunch and get food poison... whereby the next patient(s) will not receive the same type of health care from the same physician. Even though the difference in treatment is not intentional, it nonetheless is not equal. The physician's health, age, biases, training and the like, all effect the e-quality of their professionalism... or lack thereof.

Reagan poster (63K)

The U.S. would not need to claim itself to have a superior military if it actually strove for equality. But it doesn't. No government does. Nor do religions, education systems or mom -and- pop corner drug stores. People seek a dominance over others or one's own individualism, or be dominated by one or more others in order to find a place in a social pecking order as a means of acquiring some measure of acceptance. The U.S. government sees itself as being superior, and this attitude is the role model many of its citizens attempt to emulate. When Donald Trump used the slogan "Make America Great Again", some people made a correlation that Hitler referenced the same idea with the appropriate inclusion of "Germany" in place of "America". However, despite the attempt to disparage Donald Trump in this manner, a review of selective history indicated that it was a similar slogan used by Ronald Regan in his bid for the Presidency. Clearly, neither of them were original thinkers. No less, neither would they have ever thought to use the same phrase by adding the word "Equality" to it, such as "Make America's Equality Great". Equality is not nor was not on any of their mind's. Yet, let us be fair. It is difficult to think in terms of equality when it is neither widely practiced or thought about with a definitive intent of producing it. Because it is not, nor is it on the minds of millions of Americans, one must consider that all these people may well share in a similar type of... feeling inferior... or a need to have some symbol which serves to express an over-evaluation of their real or imagined quality or qualification. Hence, the slogan "Make America Great Again" thus stands for "Make Me Feel Great Again, or worthy again.

Ronald Reagan used the slogan "Let's make America great again" during his successful presidential campaign in 1980. During a general election address in 1950, the UK's Margaret Thatcher said that her goal was to "make Britain great again." President of the Philippines Ferdinand E. Marcos once promised "with the help of the masses to make this country great again".

While an underlying theme of Nazi propaganda may have been "making Germany great again," a message that directly contributed to Hitler's rise to power, this does not mean that Donald Trump (or Ronald Reagan, or Margaret Thatcher, or Ferdinand Marcos, or anybody else) necessarily campaigned on Nazi principles.

Source: Snopes.com, rumor has it

It is not possible to establish a uniform equality when so much of any given philosophical, religious institution or larger national political observance is against equality in the everyday practiced life-styles. American, nor China, nor Russia, nor Canada, nor South America, nor Africa, etc..., want to practice an actual equality. They want to be able to claim that they do, they want to exhibit one or another social program that is labeled an expression of equality, but they don't actually want to embrace it, because all industry, invention, technological advances, etc., would come to an end. It a "greater" sense of equality, all forms of competition would be unnecessary. In other words, perfect equality is impossible, because everyone would have to be born the same way and proceed towards death the same way... if birth and death are not also expressions of inequality. Then again, does equality mean sameness or can it mean differences? Can we be equally different?

Is equality improved if we reduce excesses... so that no one can exceed a particular expression of talent, giftedness, wage, benefits, height, physical build, eye color, intelligence, etc.? How do we measure excess or uniformity if it is not by using tools of measurement that can be arbitrarily altered to coincide with standards to be applied to a given situation? Just because we have thousands of people wearing the same military uniform does not mean they are all qualitatively equal. And if all the world's nations had the same number of personnel and armaments, would they be equal? Are we to measure equality in terms of an absence, similar to the mentality of many who define peace as an absence of war? And yet, do we permit excesses to occur because we do not attempt to definitively define equality and prefer to use a system of arbitrariness based on precedents of expediency revolving around the desire of a given type of profitability? Are two apples equal because they came from the same tree even if individual taste buds beg to differ with an authority figures predisposition towards a traditionalized opinion and certification thereof? Or if we claim the intent to provide equal access and opportunity, is this actually an expression of an attempted equality when we do not take all variables of the players and context into consideration? And do we permit ourselves to be excused from seeking a fairer type of equality because those enabled to establish such are not equal to the task as one or more others might be?

If we assign the words "value" and "sameness" to a definition of equality, what we are actually describing is an underlying attempt to identify a presumed characteristic in numerical terms. For example, if we say the word "one" and the symbol "1" are the same, are equal... our task of defining what is meant by "equality" is greatly assisted through the process of enumeration that comes to find further application in exchanging an animate profile into an inanimate one. Hence, two people denoted as "individuals" and entitled as "citizens", are presumed to represent an equality by virtue of these designations. Each one person are equal, despite differences that may exist in their personality, etc... Because of the awkwardness that the topic of equality must be approached on distinctly philosophical grounds, it is easier for a nation to practice the exercise of labeling a given activity as being an expression of equality, because it affords a greater opportunity to practice inequality as well... as an observable contrast enabling distinctions.

Is greater equality to be achieved by permitting the recognition and encouragement of individualized types of assumed superiority? If you are superior to another in one activity and they are superior to you in another, does this mean you are equal? If everyone were to pay the same taxes based on personal wages (or company earnings), would this be equality? Is it inequality if one's business affords them greater tax deductions over a person's wages because the allowance is permitted under the guise that the business provides jobs for people and an increased revenue for a government entity whose primary interest is to create a large surplus as a "rainy day fund"... despite the existence of hardships being experienced by citizenry who may or may not have contributed to the tax pool but are nonetheless claimed to have "equal access and opportunity" (dependent on time constraints and bureaucratic gauntlets)? Because definitions are an important part of a politician's ability to develop adequate legislation on behalf of the public's interests, why is it that prospective political candidates are not asked to define, for example, democracy and equality, and then have such definitions scrutinized in order to point out strengths and weaknesses during a debate... which would greatly assist the public in identifying those whose answers can then be used to monitor future behavior of established ideals that would be put into practical usage?

But having an actual democracy will not guarantee that an actual equality is being practiced. Nor will the adoption of a Communism or Socialism ensure that a greater "standard" of equality exists. Just because everyone might dress the same, greet each other the same, eat the same or even look the same, does not necessarily mean their physiology, feelings and thoughts are the same... or that "sameness" actually represents equality. "Equality" may be little more than another variation of a Utopianism like Heaven and acts as an expressed obsessive-compulsiveness created as a stress reaction by those who have physiological sensitivities to the various environmental deteriorations taking place. In other words, it is a coping mechanism... albeit a futile attempt to achieve a stable level of emotional and psychological equilibrium in response to an ongoing planetary decay that the human species and other adaptable life forms attempt to achieve some relative harmony with.

If we view equality from the perspective of equilibrium, the notion of social equilibrium can now be introduced:

Social Equilibrium

(Is) a theoretical state of balance in a social system referring both to an internal balance between interrelated social phenomena and to the external relationship the system maintains with its environment. It is the tendency of the social system, when disturbed, to return to its original state, because any small change in a social element is followed by changes in other related elements that work toward diminishing the first disturbance.

American sociologist Talcott Parsons postulated that all social systems tend to approximate a state of equilibrium, although no concrete system will actually reach a perfectly equilibrated state. To Parsons, the fully equilibrated society served as a theoretical reference point rather than as a description of a real system. Some students of cultural change, however, maintain that the basic tendencies in social and cultural systems are toward change rather than toward states of equilibrium.

Source: "Social Equilibrium." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

As with the above consideration, we might want to consider that "equality" also is a theoretical reference point, as are the words: Peace, Communism, Democracy, Socialism, Heaven, Hell, etc... They are different words which appear to point out some distant position that can be occupied if we choose the right path... or perhaps stumble serendipitously upon it. All too often beliefs are assumed to be absolute truth one organizes one's entire life in accordance with instead of practicing it as a theoretical consideration commensurate with being one of many cook book recipes. And this is the problem we are presently having with the topics of religion and philosophies about governance as well as a structured economy, though some may be foolish enough to conclude that a presumed "open" or "free" marketplace economy is less structured than other forms such as a command type or one based on traditions of bartering and exchange... all of which have observed regulations of propriety.

Communism is like the notion of equality and Heaven in that it exists somewhere in an indistinct numinous future along a currently presumed three-stage path of Democracy to Socialism to Communism which included the note predecessor entitled feudalism:

(On the heels of feudalism whose surpluses and unequal redistribution thereof was followed by the Surpluses created by a presumed better type of economy called Capitalism (which has created its own model of unequal redistribution); is said to be followed by an economy of Socialism (that has shown to have its own type of unequal redistribution)... all of which is to be followed by a presumed utopic formula of economy called Communism (that detractors already provide evidence of having its own built-in type of unequal distribution).

It's not that a redistribution of surplus can not be made equitable, it's just that those who have and present do draw up the means, methods, and measurement; have been biased in one way or another, no matter how fair they want to believe their distributive processes are. Current models of Communism, Democracy and Socialism do not incorporate a philosophy for global humanity that will live in multiple centuries forward in time that requires distributive and usage of finite resources of all materials to be extended with the intent of helping humanity be capable of existing long after all resources of Earth have been exhausted.

The current three-part path of a Democracy to make way for a Socialism to make way for a Communism; is just another type of trinitarian model that had little to do with religion and more to do with an underlying recurrence of a cognitive pattern... though, is comparatively similar in this psychological sense as being similar to the religious idea of those who claim that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life— as a path leading to salvation. In other words, Communism is supposed to arrive on some future scene as an emergent heaven-like property that is little more than the model of a welfare system provided by the efforts and surpluses established by the contributions of hard work developed and collected by Democracy and Socialism. In other words, it is a vulture waiting for the hyenas to have their fill and leave the excess carcass behind which provides the necessary surplus for it to survive, like an aristocracy or clergy free to do as it pleases and claim such leisure will help it pursue more loftier goals. So long as the U.S. and other governments claim to be pursuing a path towards greater equality, prosperity, and democracy (or social democracy), it can carry out its many self-indulgent bureaucratic businesses as usual.

By claiming that the nation has a higher standard of living, such a perspective can help to conceal the fact that it also has a higher standard of poverty, though poorer countries would relish being able to experience such a poverty... in their economically depressed country, but not under conditions of social wealth such as in the U.S. which caused such a state of poverty to create privations that are aligned with personal suffering due to a lack of shelter, health care, and food. Because the American government was designed as a business model, its requirement to remain solvent rests on its activity of providing welfare assistance that typically involves some model of business activity to administer one or another program. Because its traditions are those based on business activity, it has great difficulty in doing anything without involving some business-related requirement... as illustrated in such everyday expressions as "mind your own business", "take care of your own business", "it's none of your business", "business as usual" and the derivative "same ol', same ol'" (same old business)... etc.

Instead of using the words "Heaven", "Shangri-la", "Bliss", "Harmony", "Enlightenment", "Peace", "Nirvana" etc., the words Communism, Democracy, Socialism or Equality have come to be sociologically oriented correlations that advance the proposition of practicality, or a presumed "real world" application of an advanced idealism. In short, substitutions in words and application occur which can obscure both their distant origins and an underlying cognitive profile that is a sustained expression of a persisted in effort to incrementally modify behavior just enough that an intellectual activity of whittling-away at former ideological substrates used in the adaptation to a changing environment may be overlooked... so that former square pegs fit more easily, though crudely, into prevailing non-square environmentally depended social crevices. But just because ideas adapt to changes and that we may not acknowledge the adaptive characteristics, does not mean the same underlying cognitive processes aren't occurring and dealing with changing environmental/social circumstances as best they can. Let us look at change with respect to the subject of Sociology, all the while keeping in mind that the current discussion remains tide to topic of equality, and that when reading content in Sociology, there is an inclination for its writers to exhibit a Sociologically-themed introversion characterized by a soap opera scripting style involving human interactions with other humans in subjectively dramatized scenery as a three-part socio-psycho-biology:

Social Change

In Sociology, the alteration of mechanisms within the social structure, characterized by changes in cultural symbols, rules of behaviour, social organizations, or value systems.

Throughout the historical development of their discipline, Sociologists have borrowed models of social change from other academic fields. In the late 19th century, when evolution became the predominant model for understanding biological change, ideas of social change took on an evolutionary cast, and, though other models have refined modern notions of social change, evolution persists as an underlying principle.

Other sociological models created analogies between social change and the West's technological progress. In the mid-20th century, anthropologists borrowed from the linguistic theory of structuralism to elaborate an approach to social change called structural functionalism. This theory postulated the existence of certain basic institutions (including kinship relations and division of labour) that determine social behaviour. Because of their interrelated nature, a change in one institution will affect other institutions.

Various theoretical schools emphasize different aspects of change. Marxist theory suggests that changes in modes of production can lead to changes in class systems, which can prompt other new forms of change or incite class conflict. A different view is conflict theory, which operates on a broad base that includes all institutions. The focus is not only on the purely divisive aspects of conflict, because conflict, while inevitable, also brings about changes that promote social integration. Taking yet another approach, structural-functional theory emphasizes the integrating forces in society that ultimately minimize instability.

Social change can evolve from a number of different sources, including contact with other societies (diffusion), changes in the ecosystem (which can cause the loss of natural resources or widespread disease), technological change (epitomized by the Industrial Revolution, which created a new social group, the urban proletariat), and population growth and other demographic variables. Social change is also spurred by ideological, economic, and political movements.

Source: "Social Change." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

The various theoretical schools exhibit a basic form of mathematical thinking herein simplified:

  • 1 + 1 (or A) = 2 or 3; or B or C... (Marxian theory)
  • 1 + 1 = 0 or 2... (Conflict theory)
  • 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 (Structural-Functional theory, like a three-legged stool which is more stable than a two-legged one)

In each of these theories can be found an underlying two-part contrast that can be compounded to include additional variables. It is the same "two" balancing act witnessed in psychology, as noted in the following examples:


  • Conscious mentalism - Unconscious mentalism: Emphasis on awareness of mental structure or activity vs. unawareness; coincides with rationalism - irrationalism dichotomy.

  • Behaviorism - Mentalism: Proper study of psychological focuses on objective content or on subjective content.

  • Determinism - Indeterminism - Nondeterminism: Human events completely determined by antecedents and explicable vs. determined but incompletely explicable vs. not determined.

  • Empiricism - Rationalism: Major, if not exclusive source of knowledge is experience vs. reason.

  • Functionalism - Structuralism: Psychology should describe adaptive activities vs. elemental classes and contents.

  • Mechanism - Vitalism: Activities of living beings completely explicable by physiochemical constituents vs. not so explicable.

  • Molecularism - Molarism Small versus Large units of behavior.

  • Monism - Dualism: Fundamental principle or entity in universe is of one kind vs. two kinds, mind and matter.

  • Nativism - Empiricism: Thought and behavior emerges from innate structures vs. emerges from experiences.

  • Subjectivism - Objectivism: Introspective accounts of experience do, or do not, constitute valid data.

  • Universalism - Relativism: Is the world an objective entity, the same for everyone, or is it relative to the perceiver?

Let me add one "two" example to the above list: Nature - Nurture.

Source: Patterns-of-Two related to people (Above list is towards the bottom of of the page)

The point to make with the above simple mathematical display is to point out that a conservation of thought processing is taking place and may adapt to changes in the language and interests of a given era with different labels, but that they can not obscure the basic underlying type of thinking formulas being used as an expression of the same type of adaptation style being applied because the changes in the environment caused by an incrementally occurring deterioration influence the reflex-like recurrence.

In order to better understand how the tertiary-aligned concept of Democracy→ Socialism→ Communism are abstract labels (just like the notion of "equality") and represent a form of identifiable mental processing which takes place over time with different labels but retains the same type of conserved pattern, take a look at the following list of three-part examples spanning different time periods; but retains the same underlying anatomical tripartite pattern that can be seen at: Dr. McNulty's List of Threes in human anatomy.

3 patterned philosophical distinctions:

St. Augustine's Philosophy: Memory ~ Understanding ~ Will
Comte's Philosophy: Great Being ~ Great Medium ~ Great Fetish
Hegel's 3 Spirits: Subjective Spirit ~ 0bjective Spirit ~ Absolute Spirit
Plotinu's Philosophy: One ~ One Many ~ One and Many
Aristotle's 3 Unities: Unity of Action ~ Unity of Time ~ Unity of Place
Sir F. Bacon's 3 Tables: Presence ~ Absence ~ Degree
Thomas Hobbes's 3 Fields: Physics ~ Moral Philosophy ~ Civil Philosophy
Immanuel Kant's 3 Critiques: Pure Reason ~ Practical Reason ~ Judgment
Averroes's 3 Commentaries: Little ~ Middle ~ Great
Karl Marx's 3 isms: Communism ~ Socialism ~ Capitalism
Woodrow Wilson's 3 isms: Colonialism ~ Racism ~ Anti-Communism
Hippocrates's Mind Disorders: Mania ~ Melancholia ~ Phrenitis
Emile Durkeim's 3 Suicides: Egoistic ~ Altruistic ~ Anomic
D. Liesman's 3 Social Characters: Tradition-directed ~ Inner-directed ~ Other-directed
Erich Fromm's 3 Symbols: The Conventional ~ The Accidental ~ The Universal
Pythagoras's "fusion" idea: Monarchy ~ Oligarchy ~ Democracy (into harmonic whole)
M.L. King Jr.'s "Middle Road": Acquiescence ~ Nonviolence ~ Violence
Kierkegaard's 3 Stages: Aesthetic ~ Ethical ~ Religious
Husserl's 3 Reductions: Phenomenological ~ Eidetic ~ Religious
St. Augustine's 3 Laws: Divine Law ~ Natural Law ~ Temporal, or positive Law
Witness Stand "Laws": Tell the Truth ~ The whole Truth ~ Nothing but the Truth
Titus Carus's 3 Ages: Stone Age ~ Bronze Age ~ Iron Age
Feuerbach's 3 Thoughts: God, 1st Thought ~ Reason, 2nd ~ Man, 3rd
Magnus's 3 Universals: Ante Rem ~ In Rem ~ Post Rem
Max Weber's 3 Authorities: Traditional ~ Charismatic ~ Legal-rational
F.  de Sausure's 3 "Signs": Sign ~ Signified ~ Signifier
Charles Pierces 3 "Signs": Qualisign ~ Sinsign (token) ~ Legisign
John Keynes's 3 Eras: Scarcity ~ Abundance ~ Stabilization
George Mead's 3 Distinctions: Self ~ I ~ Me
Thrasher's 3-group Gangs: Inner Circle ~ Rank & File ~ Fringers
Abe Lincoln's 3-For-All: Of the People ~ By the People ~ For the People
Jesus Christ's 3 Praises: In the name of the Father ~ Son ~ Holy Spirit
Samuel Clemmons' 3 lies:
(Mark Twain)
Lies ~ Damned Lies ~ Statistics
Sociology's 3 traditional Social Classes: Lower- Middle- Upper
Georges Dumezil's Indo-European Socio-religious categories: Priestly/Regal class
Nobility/Warrior class
Artisan/Craftsman/Agriculturist worker Class

Source: Marx's Brain Development

Table initially originated from: 3s Poster column 5

And although it may seem to some readers that the discussion of "equality" has run far afield, the fact that it is not actually being practiced and that governments are particularly against the adoption of equality; stands to reason we need to understand why this is, what equality actually means and otherwise represents— in dimensions of consideration outside the typical sociological parameters of consideration. Just because a topic of discussion may come up again and again in given subject area such as Sociology, does not mean this subject area has the necessary comprehension nor language to pursue more definitive models of distinction.

Date of Origination: Sunday, 27-Nov-2016... 02:45 AM
Date of initial posting: Tuesday, 28-Nov-2016... 11:07 AM