Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
U.S. colleges and trade schools
Odd combination of directories you think? See 'faces'
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(8th edition [re-edit] - Dec 2012) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
When people speak of human evolution - whether or not they believe we descended from an ape - the term ‘human’ is taken to mean a single homogeneous unit. Instead, humans should be considered as multiple entities temporarily sharing the same body. While the conscious and subconscious mind mind are more evident as being 'separate entities' - which will be demonstrated shortly - there's likely a third... being the 'carrier of instincts' which will also be explained. This revelation, if true, will make the matter of human evolution seem trivial.
While at first glance this may seem no different than what religions have been saying all along... that we have a soul which, upon the death of the body, it lives on... there's more to it. Likewise concerning consciousness and subconsciousness as commonly described. Although the concept of a conscious and subconscious mind helps explain many things - being a masterstroke in definitions largely because it divided the mind - it doesn't quite highlight the real significance.
While we realize there is an 'animal aspect' to our being - while at the same time knowing the 'human element' distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom - these truths need to be reexamined under a new light (to see what they really mean).
Ascertained as well as can be ascertained after 71 years, given my dedication, of intense observation and scrutiny along with a heavy dose of introspectiveness, practically constant, moreover greatly assisted by the muse and to some degree divine intelligence, these two entities are both forms of life but have no other commonality except for being temporarily unified (the likelihood of a third entity - the carrier of instincts - will be explained shortly). One is essentially the 'human element' while another entity is otherwise animal in nature and attends to the physical needs of the body. It doesn't mean these two entities always live in harmony however... sometimes (or often) having conflicting interests.
In other words, with the body comes the 'animal mind' but jointly possessing the mind is the human element… demonstrating its internal existence with the attributes of love, hate, compassion, ethics and all else 'human'. Of somewhat different agendas then, there would be conflicts. And, to tell us how much (or how often) conflicts exist, there's an apparatus inside our brain called the 'conscience'. One might call it a 'referee'. This (the conscience) is mentioned because it goes a long way in highlighting 'more than one'. There would be no need for a referee otherwise.
While it can be legitimately argued the human body is effectively of the animal kingdom it can only be argued the human body is… not the 'human element'. Coexisting then (within the same skull) is the mind of the human body (animal mind) and the human element. Although obvious they occupy the same space, the term 'coexisting' helps paint a better picture of this arrangement. However, the two are so fundamentally different from each other that whatever argument one has, they run the risk of being in error to speak of them both in the same breath.
For centuries religions have essentially been saying the human mind is unique, that it is (or has) a spiritual soul, but it seems with this position they took a curious stance over Darwinism. While they correctly speak of the human spirit as being separate, one should wonder what the fuss was about over Darwin's theory of evolution - that humans evolved from an ape (although we didn't). After all, Darwin was effectively talking about the human body not the human mind (the mind is our 'real aspect').
That's because during the19th century, as now, humans were considered a 'single unit'. That is, the body and the 'human aspect' being one-in-the-same. Apparently the significance of the subconscious mind hadn't yet been taken into account. Originally it was called the 'unconscious' mind by the philosopher Friedrich Schelling in the 18th century which, unfortunately, Sigmund Freud adopted and then emasculated. The direction Freud took it would have horrified Schelling.
Even now, apparently religions and science (atheism) haven't yet realized their common ground. After all, both acknowledge the existence of "it" which one calls the 'soul' and the other the 'human element'. It is unknown whether it was a term during the 19th century however... although 'human nature' was. Whatever the case, the term 'element' would have made for better arguments. It could have aborted the uproar... at least tempered somewhat the passions.
While science doesn't believe "it" has any extraneous (spiritual) properties as religions and the spiritual-minded do, but by acknowledging "it" as being a unique feature within the animal kingdom further supports the idea of 'separate'. Yet, the significance of 'separate' is simply begging to be characterized differently (better).
Of course, in order for this theory of cohabitation to fly - that humans are comprised of multiple entities only temporarily bonded together and not a single unit - then more will have to be addressed. Whether or not it will have an effect on the following curiosities remains to be seen (dependent on how this theory is advanced).
* While the human element itself is fathomable to a degree, it's curious infants react similarly to newborn mammals as if 'still missing' the human element. It's possible it isn't incorporated until days, weeks or months later. Like the 'spark of life', it too may require a 'spark'. That, however, is not the issue at hand.
Although the mind and body appear to be a single package, appearances can be deceiving. Humans are more complex than meets the eye and largely responsible are the arrangements. For one, with the human element humans have a twin awareness whereas animals only a single awareness. This single awareness explains why animals have no internal conflicts... never to second-guess themselves. This is mentioned because a twin awareness is powerfully supportive of these two entities existing.
The third (instincts - for all intents and purposes "the carrier of") will be dealt with shortly.
Perhaps helpful in painting this picture let's go ahead and deal with the question of whether the human mind contains this magnificent difference upon conception or subsequently. One could conclude it can only occur in one of two ways… either humans are inherently human at birth or receive the human element later. While obviously the human element became included in either case, but regardless of when... it doesn’t necessarily mean it is wholly incorporated but co-exists as stated. While no proof exists, neither is there proof the human element is wholly incorporated (absorbed) into a single unit just because it is effectively 'attached'.
Of course, proving itself useful here in explaining is the ingenious concept of the 'subconscious mind'. Thanks to that ground-breaking concept, in our mind's eye 'separate' is now more easily visualized. It even 'fits' with religious concepts.
Yet, society is still having to deal with the distractive pictures science tries to paint. For example, anthropology went ahead and painted its version as to our origins without all the facts… knowingly without all the facts. It was wholly presumptuous... the truth of the matter is far more complex. Overtly ad hoc... even while being fully aware of the miraculous nature of the human body, the sciences are still bent on working up models of the unknown based on atheistical, linear and unimaginative suppositions. It should be called 'straight-line thinking' which is totally ineffective for metaphysical matters.
One could call it 'one-dimensional' thinking.
Of course, religions and cultures have painted unsubstantiated pictures as well. It seems everyone - prophets and philosophers alike - tries to make the most out the hints they find... hints being the only thing these "ghosts of truths" will drop. After all, indicators are all there are to work with. It's all about interpretation. Among the general population it probably ranges from good to awful. Since truths aren't something you can put in your pocket - being entirely ethereal - we're effectively dealing with hint-dropping ghosts.
To demonstrate the precariousness of theoretical positions, the current characterizations of 'instincts' and 'awareness' came from vantage points one can't put their finger on (a point-of-view). Or, for that matter, put a finger on that observed. Neither a point-of-view or that observed are tangibles. It's been a matter of hard-to-read signposts in a dense fog which would lead to misinterpretations or things not being fully appreciated. For example, unappreciated was that life can exist without awareness (the lowest forms of life)... but the fact they're nonetheless alive makes a powerful statement.
This powerful statement goes off on a tangent however and is only partially addressed here. Anyway, these lower forms seem to be saying "hey, look at us... we're instincts with a capital "I" and mainly purposed to serve survival and balance". And, they seemingly go on to say, "and you animals and humans can't live without us".
Awareness, at least, is more fathomable than instincts because it's more directly experienced. Instincts are, in effect, 'further removed'. But, life forms or not, it's still a foggy matter. Except for the human ability to more fully interpret, it appears to be the same awareness experienced by animals.
So, a question... might animals say "we're really people but people without the human element"? Well, it's worth considering. I have some chickens who might, if they could, say that. Probably many pet owners would swear to it.
Clear however is the distinction between creatures that (1) have only instincts (lower life forms); (2) have both instincts and awareness (animals in general); and (3) have instincts, awareness and the human element (humans). While different than how scientists would classify, nonetheless they are clearly three different life forms and the attributes possessed in most cases suggest they're built atop one another. In effect, life can also exist in stages.
Stage 1: instincts
Stage 2: instincts + awareness
Stage 3: instincts + awareness + human element
Since no other word really describes instincts except for maybe 'inherent aptitude' - although that doesn't put a finger on it - the instinctual phenomenon can be looked upon as if a train awaiting passengers. In effect, it's the creature's DNA that orders which passengers (instincts) to load. It's the 'carrier' all three (3) stages possess.
Awareness can be described much easier... it is simply 'consciousness'. And, like instincts, since it functions it must be alive. Likewise alive is the human element which is our subconsciousness. And, just like our senses, they can be (likely are) 'separate'.
Of course, instincts, awareness and the human element have always been lumped together, as if a single operating unit... but there seems no justification. After all, our five senses aren't lumped together as a single operating unit. We know each are independent. This should be telling us to look elsewhere for independence.
While the results of this 'unwrapping of the human package' may seem far-fetched, any analysis would if in the ballpark. It would because to be in the ballpark is surely bizarre. As for being life forms, it would be as viable as any explanation..
While the instinctual phenomenon within lower life forms is more akin to 'automatic reflexes', and not really awareness - at least not enough to say instincts, as a life form, have awareness - but with the more powerful and wider array of instincts typical in the higher orders there's a very telling situation. While instincts require awareness to function, it's not the possessor of the instincts (dog, cat) having the awareness but the instincts themselves! Anyway, it goes a long way in supporting the idea the carrier of instincts is a life form.
Perhaps more can be learned by defining the awareness of vegetation.
None of this threatens the idea of Creation either... it would be, was, and is, still required for each stage. These three ethereal features are only inheritable after the fact. Put metaphorically... of a sleeker and more functional design, a new engine and with the parts available humans were 'built'.
Considering the fog surrounding the modus operandi of metaphysics is why we should remain open to the idea humans are multifaceted (comprised of more than one entity - at least three). At this point however it's just a 'ballpark theory' subject to revisions. At least it appears to be in the ballpark.
If anything, it's even more bizarre.
Whatever the case, there should be no such thing as 'official conclusions' about anything ethereal. Once a stance is adopted by science - invariably within ballparks scissored out along their own dotted lines - they can stand for centuries and become almost impossible to change. So far, we have considered ourselves a single unit and the purpose here is to challenge this long-held assumption. After all, someone needs to try throwing some additional light... except for the philosophical characterization of the sixth sense and subconscious mind our understanding of the ethereal hasn’t progressed in the past 2,000 years.
Religions, during those years, have relished only in vagueness. But vagueness is better than what the sciences have contributed in regards to the ethereal.
Again, while science holds that instincts are for survival purposes, primordially basic to all forms of life, and while true, it is only a partial characterization. Of course, it's partial because that's all that's known for sure. In this, at least, science didn't wildly extrapolate. At least not successfully (nothing more has society accepted).
While one might be tempted to put instincts on a par with the senses or claim it a capability of the sixth sense, there is no known supporting evidence. At least the theory of cohabitation has 'some' supporting evidence. And, said differently, having been proven divisible means the human brain is amenable to arrangements. If it wasn't amenable it wouldn't be divisible. The brain may be able to accommodate any number of arrangements (additions)... in this case life forms built atop one another.
Who knows yet... maybe talents are 'additions'. Or maybe a 'super-charged' sixth sense (which some people seem to have).
When it comes to describing what humans are, the sciences are of no help... still utilizing a straight line approach… still embracing the shallow mentality of Darwinism. Nor are they apt to change. After all, professions depend on immutable stances.
If we’ve learned anything at all from what we know of God’s creations, then we should expect the unknown truths to be utterly bizarre. That said, one should keep in mind characterizations depend entirely on semantics which are woefully lacking when it comes to metaphysics. It's hard to be clear... true also of anything sensory (like the smell of mom's apple pie).
Of course, divine intelligence would make this picture much clearer... it has a way of giving the mind's eye 20/20 vision. Well, maybe absorbed just 20/30 or 20/40. Still, that wouldn't be bad... being a lot better than 'normal'. But to really get anywhere we must learn to describe things as divine intelligence would.
Last modified: 02/29/16