P    R    I    N    C    I    P    I    A         T    R    I    O    O    N    I    C    A


February 2015

Beat One: An Introduction to Trioonity- 


We humans have always been looking at the world around us. We have always put a great deal of effort into examining the world. It is time for that to change. We are facing challenges that our examination of the world cannot address. The challenge now is to examine how we look at the world and how we see it. Right now, there are people with two opposing views of the world that are engaging in unimaginable violence to insure the survival of their views. Even at the cost of the world their view is allegedly of. People are taking sides over a line that has no clear definition and appears to run perpendicular to the divisive lines we are previously familiar with. A scientific examination of the world does not produce two worlds to fight over. An examination of our perception does. Trioonity is just such an examination.

Trioon distills down to a series of outrageous suggestions any one of which, by itself, can only add a bonkers element to the contemporary model of mind. Taken as a whole, they define a model of mind (or brain activity) that is an entire departure from established models. Trioonity attempts to re-describe perception and thinking without any mention of quantum mechanics, string theory, akaskhic fields or spiritual realms. Things that other theories describe as deep and unseen will be re-described as shallow and in plain sight. Trioon does not and will not depart from established scientific facts but will instead challenge the rooted perceptions that shape and inform the models that we make from the facts. If one's response is that Trioon is un-provable, so are the established suggestions that Trioon challenges.

There is no avoiding that all this will need to be taken as a theory of consciousness… and why would anyone need another theory of consciousness? Luckily, Trioonity has no need for traditional consciousness whatsoever. This is a theory of perception that does not presuppose an extra inner state of something that takes in our experiences. There is no need for qualia. Trioon obeys all our favorite rules of physics, biology and determinism while it describes a system that actually requires personal volition to function.

Traditional theories like to lump all of our perceptions into a single experience called being aware. This single awareness can have many states and be altered by various techniques and provocations. This model provokes a lot of squabbling over issues of Free Will and the popular Illusion of Self. Trioonity says that there is indeed an illusion going on. The illusion is that all our perceptions are lumped together into a single experience called being aware.

This illusion creates the irresistible temptation to add an indefinable something to the system that is the receiver of our perception. There is an undeniable sensation and locality to our vision. It is irresistible and seems intuitively sensible to presume that something aware is looking at what we're looking at. Science can place our perception in the hard reality of our bodies but simply refuses to grant a blessing on any cubby-hole of the cosmos in which to place said something with awareness. This model hits a wall with science. Illusions tend to make us walk into them. Trioonity proposes a different path. The worst it can do is hit a different wall so, consider a brief suspension of the traditional model while Trioonity starts from the bottom up.

The Brand X theorists often cite the example of the simple and selfless amoeba and ask how we humans can be anything more? Aren't we just as lost in a chain of stimulations and reactions just like them? In what way could we be different without tempting the floodgates of a wooish spiritual philosophy? First, the amoeba gets a new classification- Monoon. That means it truly conforms to the traditional model with all of its perceptions lumped together into a single experience called being aware and with the expected lack of Free Will and no inner self. Trioonity's first outrageous idea is to draw a line between the amoeba and animals that have developed and rely on stereoscopic sight. They get the classification Bioon but not because it's stereo.  That's because, as perception evolved, it did not stretch… it separated. Vision still informed the basic amoeba-like perceptual system with shapes and distance and movement and color and contrast. That sounds like the whole list of things to see. It is, and the line is drawn between different ways of seeing these same components of sight.

We can see all the listed components cinematically. They are put together into a picture that is experienced as a picture. The same components are seen by our basic perception, but not as a picture. In Trioonity, what the amoeba in us (or lizard brain, primal self, inner cowboy) sees is called Sub-Cinema perception. The 'picture' is actually a second perception called the cinematic view, or Cinema perception. The reason they developed into separate perceptions is because of differences in the timing of their operations. Sighted animals who waited to find out everything their sight was telling them got and became just desserts. The successful course was to keep Sub-Cinema very fast while Cinema perception took the additional time to do something more extensive.

Sub-Cinema perception is very fast and can trigger a physical reaction before Cinema perception finishes assembling. But sub-cinema is more than a perception of sight and sound. Its visual info combines with input from our whole nervous system from which moment by moment conclusions are made and choices of action are determined. It is as if a subterranean being were living inside us but there is no need to put it that way. It is a subterranean perception from which a conclusion is drawn and action is triggered. Its operation reveals our deepest and simplest intentions, desires and revulsions. It sees a world of its own and in a sense, leads a life of its own pursuing its needs and avoiding discomfort. It shows on the outside as our most physical personality. It is experienced on the inside as an impulsive and primal self that is often struggled with. But by what?

At this point many will find the Trioon ground is already getting squishy. Trioon is going to use the metaphor of living personalities or beings within us because it is practical and informative to use them. It's a chance to update the definition of being, too. The Trioon definition of a being is, any manifestation of matter and energy that results in a perception being consumed and acted on. Any such perception and resulting action is determined by all the basic rules of physics and biology and is greatly if not entirely deterministic in their operation and means. So defined, such a being would possess no more Free Will than the amoeba. It should be noticed that this definition could easily include a variety of electronic circuits including computers. Strictly speaking, those aren't perceptions and there is no intention of lofting a computer's status to beinghood. Rather, the intent is to hammer 'being' down to size… knock it off its pedestal and let it fall to the rules of determinism that must logically rule it. Sub-dividing perception makes this easy.

Other brain schemes have segmented our skulls into threesomes before. Either by region or lobe or wavelength or little imaginary fences. Trioon's inner perceptual beings are separated by time or frame rate. Below are two timelines with a zero point that represents the instant of the arrival of an external stimulus (a pattern of light, for example). At a couple of milliseconds outward from zero, Sub-Cinema perception is consumed and acted upon. A little further down the line, at about twenty (or as late as a hundred) milliseconds, Cinema perception is ready to be consumed and acted on. At this point on the line, Sub-Cinema has already been consumed or perceived. Sub-Cinema and Cinema perceptions are thus 'fenced off' from each other by the timing and nature of their perceptions. They see differently through the same eyes. For either, the actual 'now' of the cosmos they are perceiving is something that has already happened.


Over millions of generations of bioon animals, these two perception and response systems evolved on parallel but separate tangents that led to a very complex inner relationship. This relationship is commonly spoken of (without a solid context) as our body/mind duality. Trioon casts this duality as operational only and won't be making any amateurish guesses about brain regions or alpha waves. Except for saying that Sub-Cinema perception represents the whole nervous system and Cinema perception is localized in the brain, Trioonity will deal strictly with timing.

To our sight and hearing, everything we perceive about our bodies and everything our bodies feel is something that happened just an instant ago. Seeing a picture of food can make us hungry or nauseous. Our limbs can flinch when we dream. Sub-Cinema can perceive information in images we think and dream about. Cinema and Sub-Cinema perceptions can perceive each other but cannot control what the other does. If these bioon perceptual systems were truly unified, there would be no illusion of self. There would be no one to fool. Each of our bioon perceptions has, right in front of it, nearly constant evidence of our existence. We can't imagine or conceive of our next belch. Our bodies are held helpless before what our minds can perceive or conceive. We might be able to picture ourselves without some personal bad habit in an instant, but that picture and more will have to slowly train our body to break it. Usually by repetitiously drilling counter-associations in hopes of changing our body's perception of the habit. How could we do that if we weren't Bioon, and why would we need to? How else could one say, "I'm going to change myself"?

Both of our Bioon perceptions lead to reactions that must be determinable based the circumstance and the parts involved. However, the interaction of the two perceptual systems cannot be pre-determined, and certainly not in real-time. Any conclusion drawn by either perception must include one unpredictable (from its vantage point) state- the other perception. Determinism may still rule the day, but unless one had a god-like perspective, that would not matter. From either point of Bioon view, there is no way to know any such determinism on the fly. A personal sense of self emerges from the ongoing sorting out of these two perceptions. The resulting choice or compromise is an act of volition. The two perceptions create a volatile process of interaction in which it is easy to apply self and agency. It may still be an illusion but no one is a fool for seeing it. In Bioonity, it is a constant reflection of self shared by every animal since the arrival of stereoscopic sight with its resulting functionally-separated process of cinematic perception.

If other animals could read, they would have to stop here because the rest applies strictly to humans. For those still reading, the aforementioned timeline keeps going quite a bit further and onward to Trioon's next outrageous idea. There is a short gap beyond the cinema range and then, at a quarter second or so, there begins the range of operation of a third perception that is possibly unique to humans. It does not see out of our eyes directly. It can only see the finished picture of the cinematic view in whatever form our brains have assembled it. Trioon calls it Post-Cinema Perception. Its point of consumption lies typically between 250 and 750 milliseconds on the timeline but can stretch beyond a thousand (that's a whole second). Then the perceptual timeline stops and that is why this is called Trioonity. There are three points of perceptual consumption on the timeline. At any given moment, the points will fall somewhere within their associated regions.


A third perception should sound mysterious or spiritual like ESP but in Trioonity it is a far more mundane idea. It might seem that the description so far has covered the whole gamut of perception. What else could perception do that wasn't ethereal or mysterious? Trioonity does not presume that human vision looks any different than primates' vision in general. Trioonity will suggest nothing ethereal and will instead describe how many already familiar senses and functions fall into the category of Cinema or Post-Cinema simply by how they operate. An easy way to start is to imagine a detailed list of all the things humans can do that other animals cannot. For example, reading a whole paragraph and comprehending it. That would be the Post-Cinema list.

Our Trioon perception goes way back into our hominid and primate ancestry. Our Cinema perception is the common perception of primates. It has about the same extent of abilities and limitations in all of us primates. For example, we use a tri-luminous RGB method to perceive colors (or, light wavelength differentiation). Other animals are known to use four or more spots of the spectrum (as in, RGB??) and probably have an unimaginably different experience of color. Some animals have eye placements that allow stereoscopic sight only in a narrow area where their two fields of view overlap. Some animals, like squirrels, seem to look around using a three-step technique of left eye, right eye, then straight ahead and stereo. There would appear to be lots of ways to see in the animal kingdom. All hominids inherited the standard issue primate Cinema perception.

Most theories of human origins suffer from a magic wand effect. The most obvious example being the notion of a cosmic designer making us from scratch just as we are now and only after everything else in the cosmos was ready. Even the less fanciful notions of our origins fall into a pattern of "we were a little too stupid, then Ping, we were just smart enough" and off to the Big City we went. Trioonity recasts everything commonly known about our prehistory into a long story of a slow, painful and torturous emergence of our third perception. Even once history starts, and even today, the torturous emergence continues. For humans as a species, Post-Cinema perception isn't entirely here yet.


Cinema and Sub-Cinema are well established and are always either looking at the world or remembering some part of it. Their operation is synonymous with being alive, aware and awake. For most of what we do in our lives, they are all the perception we need. That's a good thing, because Post-Cinema perception is an internal operation that must be engaged or started up. When we are done with it, it stops. We can use it deliberately or it can trigger itself automatically. We can train it to operate nearly continuously, which it would rarely do without a lot of training. Some are born with a facility that practically trains itself. Some will never produce more than a flicker of it. Most of us fall in the middle range with a competent and at least moderately trainable Post-Cinema facility.

If we presume that there is a continuous ancestry that leads back to common primate ancestors then there must be some describable transition from ape-like social groups to complex human societies and the variations between. The apparent scale of the timeline involved in just the first step to a simple tribal society is staggering and we are not the only homs to take it. Much less staggering is the scale of the timeline involved in the last step to modern civilization. It can be done in just a handful of generations and we are the only ones who ever took it. In fact, we took it over and over again always eventually falling back a step or two toward tribalism. Tribal savagery is as far back as we can fall. Tribalism doesn't fall back to primate-pods. Trioonity offers a simple explanation for this.

The emergence of Post-Cinema perception gave us tribalism. That timeline is long enough to match the expected rate of an evolutionary change to the operation and perhaps even the structure of our brains. That bulging forehead, for example. However, the history of civilization is far too brief to expect to see any changes in machinery. Instead, civilization's development tracks the extent to which there is continuity in the manner in which the training of Post-Cinema perception is passed from generation to generation. It wasn't just learning an accumulation of facts that made us civilized. It was a deliberate regimen of developing muscularity and stamina in an otherwise limp and lazy perceptual facility.

Any slacking off in that regimen and citizens will begin to lose their capacity to be civilized. Maintaining and advancing the quality level of our perceptual training is critical to any modern civilization's survival. It is more important than any morality, philosophy or faith any civilization's people may possess. That's because our level of training of our Post-Cinema perception determines what we see when we look at a morality, philosophy or faith. Put bluntly, and perhaps a bit too simply, with no training, all politics is tribalism. With moderate training, all politics is an authoritarian system based on punishment and reward. With more extensive and determined training, one can see politics as pluralism, democracy and a government of the governed. This factor, more than any other like intelligence or knowing accurate information, will determine what kind of world one aspires to live in.

All the long-surviving religious social systems like Christianity and Islam and the rest are long-surviving for one reason alone. These systems provide satisfying frameworks for every level of perception… even if the original designers never intended their system to be seen in a different form. Total submission to authority can be seen in Christianity. Personal autonomy and pluralism can be seen in Islam. It depends on what our Post-Cinema training has prepared us to see.

Christianity and Islam unintentionally sub-divide like-minded people and unify people with very different perceptions and aspirations. Modern conflicts that are actually about perceptual training policy get misread as contests between religious systems. Potential allies are alienated. Violence is enabled by the non-violent. All is excused as yet another misperception of a so-called Perfectly Conceived view of life. Trioonity offers a more useful classification based on the extent and manner of Post-Cinema training and its resulting aspirations. The loudest clue is the kind of schooling received as a child. Nearly as loud is the perceptual training level of parents or care-providers. There are softer clues in the way we make eye contact and in the timing of answers to well-chosen questions. Trioon offers a simple demarcation of Types A, B and C to identify and isolate three distinct kinds of aspirations. Today's fight is between the authoritarian A's on one side and the pluralistic B's and C's on the other. There is no difference in biology or overall average intelligence. The difference is in perception or, what we vaguely and euphemistically call "point of view". Aspirations are revealed in what that view is pointing at.

Brand X theories of perception and or consciousness do not provide any clear description of how two views can be different or how we take on and become possessed by beliefs. Michael Shermer's Belief-Dependent Realism comes close with a similar two-perception process of patternicity (very analogous to cinema perception)and agenticity (slightly analogous to post-cinema perception) that relies a lot on unseen processes in its imaginings. He tries to describe (perhaps correctly) the role of neurons and such as the belief mechanism. In Trioonity, none of this process is unseen but rather is happening right under our nose and mostly while 'we' are looking right at it. Trioonity casts the belief mechanism at the cognitive level as an interplay of timing and duration between Cinema and Post-Cinema perception.

Even with a window-shopper's understanding of neo-neuro-science, one thing seems plain. We inherited our neural-patterning mechanism from pre-hominid ancestors who show no evidence of ever believing anything or needing to believe anything to survive in the so-called wild. Sure, a beaver has a beaver's point of view but the uniformity of what beavers believe makes the term pointless. We would be equally without contrast if left to the neural-patterning of our Cinema and Sub-Cinema perception. We would have contrasting interests all based on the same Advanced Primate point of view or, hardwired instinctual system. The relatively recent arrival of belief systems suggests that we should look for its origins elsewhere.

Trioonity proposes that believing began in humankind here and there haphazardly in the form of a new way of using our nascent Post-Cinema perception. This was an extension or side effect of its original survival-valued function as a way to learn more from what we see. Getting people to all believe the same things is a big step in organizing complicated group actions. A tipping point was reached when the benefits of believing were successfully passed from one generation to the next in a consistent and continuous fashion. That continuity began the road to civilization. Each generation re-conceives and believes in a slightly better and more coherent road that the next can accelerate upon. Sometimes the change is a thin top-coat or some pot-hole patching and sometimes it is sudden and foundational usually with better drainage. Walking the road we believe is there is still new. It can lead us to a disaster that, through its total collapse, would leave us with nothing but our enhance-able neural-patterning once again. Trioonity will show how this process played out right out where we can see it because the process changed how we see things. It's a matter of looking back at how we looked at things before and how we look at them now.

As modern, civilized humans, there is a 'way' that we look at things. When we examine the evidence of the lives of our prehistoric ancestors, we use this 'way' to see it. That is unfortunate since few if any of those ancestors got to use it. We imagine ourselves leading the lives depicted in ancient relics and find that ancient societies spent a great deal of time and effort in pursuits that seem strange, overly-showy and pointlessly wasteful. It is easy to project the same perspective that our highly trained perceptions have given us onto people of the past. As a result, we have mistaken worship for fawning, rituals for orderliness, parade routes for parade routes and made a preposterous conclusion that religion sprang from a heightened perception and hence fear of death. In the Trioon view, drums had far more to do with the origins of religion than death. They were trying, with much simpler means, to do to their perception what we have already done to ours.

A progression can be found in all the clues our ancestors left behind that shows that great advancements can take place in a few generations and disappear even more quickly. The traditional view is that these changes track the degree of knowledge achieved and the resulting benefits of advancing knowledge for important stuff like nutrition and security. That makes sense for the way up but not so much for societies on the way down. Even a society that enjoys abundance and security is vulnerable to a sort of structural collapse or conceptual undermining to the way that its members look at themselves and each other. What exactly does it take for several million people to trust each other? How can a person belong to something made up of scores of people they will never meet and ground they will never tread upon?


This leads to Trioon's most outrageous suggestion. As stated above, all animals with stereoscopic sight are Bioon and all Bioon animals have some form of cinematic perception. In addition, all animals with cinematic perception have a Chunk-Limit. This term is a measure of how much attention we can apply to what we are already cinematically seeing. Like right now… these words are part of a broad field of view that includes a page or screen and other surroundings. Your attention is on these words but the rest of the view is still there. Cinema perception continues to present the broad field of view. We can select a confined area (like a word) and focus our immediate attention on it like a selection box on a computer screen. We can stretch our immediate attention to two 'chunks' of what we are seeing as if we had a second selection box. We can, with a little extra oomph, keep making more simultaneous selections of chunks up to our natural chunk-limit. We humans inherited the primates' chunk-limit of four.

There are also limits to what we can do with the chunks our cinematic attention has selected. If there is any order or sequence to be recognized in what we have selected, we can see the order. For example, if four selected objects or chunks are arranged from left to right, we can have our attention on that left-to-right arrangement. We cannot make ourselves see another arrangement. If four chunks are in a temporal sequence, we can perceive that sequence as it is and not some other sequence that it isn't. Each time we make selections in our perception, our next perception is a single selected conclusion of those perceptions. Like running an adding machine, each conclusion or total can become one of the selections of the next moment's cinematic perception.

Cinema perception is a continuous set of visual conclusions coming at a pace just a bit slower than the frame rates of motion pictures and video. A rate of 24 (film) or 30 (US video) frames per second is fast enough to overrun the typical speed of Cinema perception and create a satisfying illusion of motion. Really old stuff ran at 18 frames per second which was barely fast enough. New films look extra vivid at 48 frames per second. Traditional theater and cinema cater to our Cinema perception while making our Sub-Cinema perception as relaxed and muted as possible. Sitting in the dark in a comfy chair is a good start. Sub-Cinema can perceive some illusory depth and trajectories in a flat cinema screen. Sometimes enough to make one jump out of the comfy chair.

Obviously, one cannot play tennis with vision running at a rate of 18 frames per second. Or, while sitting in the dark in a comfy chair. Tennis is a game for Sub-Cinema perception. Next round, take a close look… in the thickest and busiest moments of a match, there is no fully cinematic perception. All the components are plainly there, but not visually assembled and not cinematic. Vision needs to be consumed at too fast a rate for a complete cinematic presentation. Under such exciting action-packed circumstances, we don't need one anyway.  Each of these recreations indulges one consumption of perception or, one consumer of perception. Tennis for Sub-Cinema. Movies for Cinema perception. For Sub-Cinema, if the movie picture is still for too long, it disappears. For Cinema perception, if a tennis match gets too busy, it disappears. Either way, our bioon vision carries on.

This would seem to give the edge to Sub-Cinema perception as our most useful visual survival tool. But we would be lost without our cinematic selection-box skills. Even if our cinematic view is one big single selection, or our attention has selected one item or chunk of it, it is held or stored as a reference for any changes in the next frame. Each frame is a cycle of select-conclude. One selection becomes one conclusion, in its most passive operation, but we can make multiple selections in each frame. Two becomes one. Three becomes one. Four becomes one. We can do this as fast as each and every frame, or we can select slowly, as we move our eyes about and form a cinematic conclusion of things we have seen in the last twelve seconds or so. Either way, at four we hit the chunk-limit. Four must become one and we build the next conclusion with it.

The real advantage of this system comes when cinema experience accumulates a stockpile of memories. Memories can fill one or more of the cinematic selection-boxes. This was better than a simple process of pre-learned association. This offered a chance to learn some more from the same memories. Cinema perception can be entirely introspective without loss of sight. Sub-Cinema mans the fort and our bioon vision carries on. In a state of agitation or fear, our cinema perception speeds up (the point of consumption moves left on the timeline) and the chunk limit becomes harder to reach. In a relaxed and unthreatened state of contemplation, the cinematic frame rate can slow down but the chunk limit is still four. It represents the limit of what our brains can do to any sort of information or stimulation as it arrives. The only opportunity for further advancement is doing something to perceptions that have already arrived and already been consumed. We began to see things post-cinematically.

Post-Cinema perception is a different approach that provided our ancestors and us with a means to beat the cinematic chunk-limit. It is best explained by backing up and considering our cinematic sight again. Many have referred to a pesky sense of self seemingly located just behind the eyes at the tips of the converging light cones of sight. Some fear that this pest can infect one's life with a delusional 'I'. This threat is confined to those who already have a delusion 'I' or, an unshakable presumption that there must be just one essential experience of life. Science isn't telling us that. In Trioonity, the pest is actually there or happening but there is no cause for alarm. It is just an action of perceptual consumption. One of our actions of perceptual consumption. Post-Cinema perception is even peskier. The illusion of a cinematic viewer is at least tangibly localized behind our eyes. Post-Cinema is wholly internal and impossible to localize. That makes it very easy to assign it an imagined locality. Post-Cinema's perspective takes in our cinematic view and nothing else. It offers us an opportunity to back up and reconsider Cinema perception in a different way, even while our bioon vision carries on.

Everything seen by Post-Cinema perception comes from Cinema perception. Once our cinematic view is slightly old news, it replays or, is re-seen as a Post-Cinema view. In this form, there is time to overcome some of our cinematic limitations. Cinema perception must run at a sensible frame rate. Our cinematic attention or, our ability to attend and select from what we see must also operate at that frame rate. Post-Cinema perception is a single attention with no fixed frame rate. Its selection abilities are limited only by how much effort one is willing to exert.

Post-Cinema perception can make parades of selections in a custom-designed sequence that does not have to match the actual order of the things as they were cinematically perceived. It has an independent sense of continuity that does not have to match the speed or rate of Cinema and Sub-Cinema perception. When in operation, a continuous parade of re-selected perceptions is fed back to our Cinema perception and made available again to its selection ability, but on a frame by frame basis once again. This allows selected input from Post-Cinema perception to become part of a cinematic conclusion that our next frame of real-time perception will be compared to. It can impose changes in what we see without requiring our Cinema perception to exceed the chunk-limit in its select-conclude process. After a few zillion cycles of this interaction of perceptual consumption, those changes can be considerable.

Post-Cinema's earliest manifestations might have come at moments of perplexity or frustration when some problem can't be solved because the solution has too many steps to see at once. Post-Cinema kicks in like a eureka moment and, without any cognition of how, the necessary sequence of summarized perceptions just appears or plays-back in a form that Cinema perception can digest within the chunk-limit. When the presentation is over (likely in a second or two), Post-Cinema kicks out or turns off. Like picking up a calculator for an un-simple math problem and putting it back down again. It's a tool for the heavy lifting. That's your answer now.

Post-Cinema's first impact was in changing what we could remember about what we saw. These memories can be a part of normal Cinema perception and function in the select-conclude process as normal perceptions. So, even if Post-Cinema never kicks in a second time, we can keep learning from that first manifestation. When it does operate further, we can be filled with memories and understandings of things that we later see only in the form of conclusions or solutions. The full, spelled-out logic of the conclusion is still too complex a perception to see at once by means of Cinema perception even though the resulting solution can be seen all at once. Unless there is a new frustration, we just use the solution and don't bother with the logic. But not always.

Sometimes, our ancestors would remember the playback of a major eureka moment and were able recite the sequence of conclusions that Post-Cinema perception delivered. The full logic of the eureka is still unperceivable but this time it left tangible and ordered building blocks behind. Memories of these perceptions don't just blend into the stockpile of regular perceptions. These are special because they require some assembly in order for our own perception to see them. As for everything else, we either see it or we don't. But these eureka sequences were revealed to common perception by their orderly playback only. Instead of a plain message that could be absorbed as a single perception, this was a narrative message because it has a beginning, a middle and an end. Without a patient reception of all three bits, the narrative is not communicated.


This description is slowly morphing from vision to language and thought. Trioon presents thought and language as by-products of perception that operate within the same machinery as vision and hearing and with the same chunk-limit and select-conclude process. Post-Cinema perception enhances thought and language in the same manner as it enhances our vision. There is nothing our thinking can do that our vision didn't do first. In operating beyond vision and into the realm of language and thought, Post-Cinema earns the further designation of narrative perception. Once empowered, our ancestors were enabled to express themselves narratively as well. All that means is, they could talk out a message with more continuity and complexity than could be perceived as a single chunk-limited perception. In language, that is up to four rhythmic beats like a slogan-sized message. In listening to someone speak beyond slogan-sized messages, it might take many perceptions and involve the full continuous attention of the listener's select-conclude operation just to keep up with it. To modern ears, this would be nothing more challenging than a medium-sized sentence. But that betrays the extent of our modern training. Long ago, the same bulky sentence would have been impossible to comprehend.

A properly phrased slogan would also have some perceivable beginning, middle and end but the point is, until the message exceeds the chunk-limit, it doesn't matter which bit is where in the sequence. This can be demonstrated in a simple word-trick called Yodafying (inspired by Yoda from the so-called Star Wars franchise). Short, simple messages can be shuffled around without losing their intended meaning. That's because, with a chunk-limit of four, it can all be seen in a single act of perceptual consumption. This is the language ability granted to us by the machinery of our cinematic perception. Hominids have been talking in words in this fashion since the arrival of articulated voicing. Even today, this simple format covers a vast amount of our daily communication. Headlines, billboards, advertising, signs, politics and even rabble-rousing all respect the hard reality of the Chunk-Limit.

In being digested all at once, a short concise message garners a near immediate response or reaction. Messages that don't require any narrative assembly to comprehend them are consumed or digested by our Cinema and Sub-Cinema perception and speak directly to our former Bioon nature. Ya' big ape. Snazzy fonts, suggestive shapes and naughty words are all calls and pitches to our bioon and animal past. When did we start saying more than that?

Our first steps in communicating beyond the chunk-limit involved props and sound effects. One of the earliest incarnations is the tall, hand-held staff. This is easily propelled downward to make a strong punctual sound against a rock or log. It can be operated by the speaker or by an assistant. The almost magical effect comes not from the taps but from the spaces of time between the taps. When the spaces or gaps are all the same, the taps become a beat. Once you have a beat going, the Door to Perception, so to speak, is open and the machinery is observable in its operation.

If the beats are less than a couple of seconds apart, then anyone listening or paying attention to the beats will start to apply their cinematic select-conclude process to them. At a medium to rapid speed, we cannot hear and follow a continuous flow of beats. There are only so many beats we can hear before one of them has to be a conclusion. As in, the beat that previous beats were leading to, and from which all further beats will follow. Our very first breakthrough in advanced communication was the discovery of Beat One. Rhythms resolve to a beat one and repeat. This is not because they conform to some mathematical structure of the cosmos. It is because of the operation of the cinematic select-conclude machinery in our brains. Only the spaces between beats have any cosmic reality. Beyond our brains, there is no rhythm or Beat One to be found.

Our brains have no choice but to create them. We want to select and conclude like always. Two becomes one. Three becomes one. Four becomes one. One, two, one, two, one, two, one. One, two, three, one, two, three, one. One, two, three, four, one, two, three, four, one. If we listen to even beats with gaps of more than a couple of seconds, we will count some imaginary beats of two, three or four between them that resolve to the real beat… now granted the status of Beat One. Rhythm became the carrier wave of longer messages. Beat One beats the chunk-limit.

Three raps or taps would announce that there was something to be said that was beyond normal chit chat. Words were spoken at a pace set by the drum or the staff. The pace could be slow or fast as long as the delivery kept resolving to Beat One. With the completed articulation of the last word of a phrase that carefully lands on Beat One, the listener holds a conclusion of the phrase in a single perception. The speaker can then carry the rhythm onward with more words that inform the previous conclusion until another more informed conclusion is made… on the next Beat One. This can continue until a sizeable piece of information has been expressed.

When the speaker hits the last Beat One of a Big Idea, it is a good idea to pause and let the Big Idea form a solid memory and conjure the listener's own associations. The pause can be a maximum of twelve seconds before the listener's attention times-out. Within that time, the speaker can carry on with more rhythmic words that inform the Big Idea. If delivered thoughtfully, many Big Ideas can become the Big Speech (likely all of three or four sentences to our modern ears but still a big step forward). By operating within the working of our Cinema perception's select-conclude process, the listener does not need to engage any extra effort to shepherd or organize the information. When the speech is over, the listener is left with perceptions that were the summarized conclusions made as it was heard. The speech itself is not retained. Except for the chunk-limit sized slogans.

All this process asks of the listener is that they follow a rhythm. That's easy, because for our cinematic machinery, perception is a rhythm. Be it as fast as the frame rate or as slow as our twelve second attention span, everything our Cinema perception does is structured as a resolving rhythm. Knowing what we're looking at is Beat One. If our chunk limit was only three, all our perceived rhythms would be different. Common 4/4 time would be perceived as an odd syncopation. Without our select-conclude process, there would be no perception of rhythm at all. The spaces between the beats would still be there and, like our Sub-Cinema perception, we could perceive whether a pulse had even spaces or not. We could perceive coordinated layers of pulses, but never perceive a Beat One.

There has been no mention of Post-Cinema for several paragraphs. Rhythms, the chunk limit and Beat One describe our inherited Bioon perception common to all hominids of the past and rooted in our primate genetics. For humans, it is still the easiest and most comfortable way to perceive the world in the form of visuals, speech, music and thought. However, none of these things would ever happen if Bioonity was the limit of our perception. The Big Speech might have been easy to follow, but it never would have been composed without Post-Cinema's perception of narratives. We modern humans would consider composing in general to be a conscious and concentrated act but it isn't entirely and, for most humans of prehistory, it wasn't at all. For most of us, it is within our capabilities only because we have been vigorously trained to do it.

Even with training, our Post-Cinema machinery often operates unconsciously and our experience is on the receiving end of it. In this form, we perceive the narrative with our Cinema perception as a series of pre-selected and ordered images or words. As it plays out, we can make summarized conclusions (within the chunk limit) and form new perceptions. Or, with only moderate training, we can talk about something without having any awareness of how we are composing our sentences. Our Post-Cinema machinery just does it automatically in accordance with how it was trained. With some extra training, we can do something that very few humans of the distant past could do. We can directly experience the machinery of Post-Cinema perception and see what it sees and think what it thinks. We no longer experience cinematic perception directly. The cinematic view, like Sub-Cinema perception, becomes something that has already happened. The ability to do this… to possess one's narrative machinery, is the prerequisite of living in a modern pluralistic society.

The proportion of a society's population that can possess their narrative perception will determine the form of socio-political system that is sustainable. If only the randomly talented few can do it and only on a competitive basis, things will be tribal in structure. One dominant narrative from one dominant individual can start a process of learning and training that creates a dominant and sheltered elite that compose and control the efforts of those that cannot, and deny any training to those outside of the elite. That makes an authority-based kingdom or empire or Holy See. When most or all have command of their own narrative talents, they all start talking about republics and democracy and Rule of the People. Should such a pluralistic society ever be achieved, its survival will depend on maintaining a minimum critical mass of trained and able self-narrators capable of perceiving it. Should the proportion fall too low, society must devolve to an authoritarian structure, usually falling into sectarian conflict on the way.

Educated citizens of a modern democratic state might wonder why anyone would want to live in a strict and unchanging authoritarian society. Why are their aspirations so different from ours? Why would anyone want their thoughts dominated? Trioonity cautions us that we need to turn the question around. Why are we so keen on getting out from under the jack-booted thumbs of despotic authority? How is it that we can dominate our own thoughts? What if we couldn't? The answer is in how our Post-Cinema perceptual training can change us from a holy warrior to a humanist voter… and back again.

There is only the extent of training and education that divides these two points of view. That doesn't mean that humanists learn more or better facts. Holy warriors can learn the same facts. The difference is in the learning of particular skills that either promote self-narration as necessary for success, or blocking those skills and making them unnecessary to succeed. This does not affect any quality of intelligence or reasoning skills. Those are attributes of our Cinema perception's select-conclude machinery. Narrative ability increases the harvest of our intelligence by adding a second perceptual selection process to our thinking. In its initial untrained state, Post-Cinema perception is an automatic and unconscious operation. It can imperceptively shepherd the thoughts that we do perceive. Like when we know what we want to say but are unaware of how we structure the act of saying it. To do this well with a large vocabulary of words requires training and regular exercise like any essentially physical skill. This comes in the form of recital and repetition, which can describe any physical exercise that is intended to enhance an innate ability. If a society wants to raise a generation of obedient holy warriors, this is as far as their training is taken.

The strict authoritarian society's intention is to leave Post-Cinema perception in an unconscious mode of operation while still performing some sophisticated functions. This should leave students with only a collection of learned or programmed algorithms that are stored like software for their narrative machinery to 'run' as needed (or when triggered). Instead, there is an additional component or attribute that becomes part of the software. It is the perceptual footprint of the teachers that becomes a part of the narration process in the form of virtual narrators or auto-narrators. These do more than organize words. They also are imbued with a manner of speech or delivery. Pacing, inflection and pitch take on the attributes of how language was heard from influential voices like parents, teachers and clergy (or TV show characters). Over time, we memorize an assortment of narrating personalities that are pre-programmed to shepherd certain topics or subjects that we have associated with a particular source or author.

The result of limiting of narrative training leaves the authoritarian society's students in a state where all perceptions beyond the chunk-limit must be shepherded by auto-narrators or taken on authority. Their Post-Cinema perception never takes the familiar, self-directed form that most anyone reading this takes for granted as simply being 'awake'. This does not mean they are less awake or aware but rather that their attention is firmly rooted in their Cinema perception. They can follow a lengthy speech as long as it conforms to the basic rules of recital and rhythm. As long as events and circumstance do not demand perceptions greater than the chunk-limit, there is no difference at all. Should anyone have moments of self-directed narration, they would be personal idiosyncratic experiences with no role or outlet in society. Persistent self-narrators will experience various degrees of discouragement from society. In a society that claims to already be perfect in design, what is there for a free-thinking, self-directed narrative mind to do except start trouble?


That describes at least the original model of the archetype Type A authoritarian citizen. Many deeply traditional styles of education aim to impose it on modern students who otherwise live in a world that tempts and demands the inner freedom of self-narration. They lead double lives of being two entirely different classifications of people often forced to choose between submission to authority or declaring apostasy. Most have to somehow find a comfortable balance of submission and independence that fits their circumstance. Some may give up on self-narration as just too much heavy lifting and surrender their perception to the authorities.

Such people can be found everywhere from Mosul to Manhattan. Some aspire to live under an authoritarian Christian model. Those raised as Muslims may aspire to live under the most authoritarian incarnations of Islam, which is far more inherently and aggressively militant aspiration than Christianity. All surviving religions have their Type A incarnations even if their founders never imagined one.

All have their Type B incarnations as well where a faith is restructured as a personal guide to autonomous self-regulation. Even Islam can be a benign organization of self-narrators who consent to appear to submit just like average American Christians. That's not a poke at either. A fully trained self-narrator can only cooperate with or choose to act submissively to authority. Abandoning self-narration altogether and opting for real perceptual submission appeals only to the few. Most self-narrators never want to go back.

Students in Type B societies receive a different sort of training that moves on and beyond recital and repetition once those talents are acquired. It is often a sort of clumsy forced-march to full narrative ability largely motivated by stress and fear. It can be as simple as telling a student, you have a book report due in six weeks… you will be judged at the end of the school year… if you mess up now, you will fail later. There is an emphasis on composition and invention and problem solving with tasks that have no pre-learned auto-narrators for assistance. A student must acquire a consistent and reliable ability to freely narrate just to get through schooling. Those that cannot are pulled aside for special help.

Some students must deal with odd mixtures of both systems. Some schooling is Type A and some is Type B… home life may be Type A while social life is Type B. The world is full of these transitional generations. Possessing self-narration is the strongest motivation to press for social change in a traditionally Type A society. Even if social authority can maintain its Type A structure, the vanquished citizens do not revert but instead remain self-narrators hiding in a prison-like world.

Trioon's classification system of Types A and B cuts through every faith and philosophy because it asks only one question: what kind of society do you aspire to live in? The answer will not be a matter of taste or philosophical inclination. The answer will be a reliable measure of perception. And now, the Big Speech.


There is another curious and overlooked factor in civilization's arrival that deserves a lot more attention. That is its male-based reality. Women are 'something that happened' to men and men will decide what they are going to do about it. This presumption is found throughout our history as if it were just 'his story'. The ongoing rationale is that males, for various reasons, are better at being civilized then females. After thousands of years of extensive effort to make sure that was true, things have started to change. Current and future generations will take the social consensus where it has not gone before. They (the consensus, and not just the few) will know that females are just as capable of being civilized as males when given the same training and opportunity. So, one might ask, what were the last 6000 years all about anyway?

Trioonity suggests a possible explanation. If both sexes would have developed Post-Cinema perception and narrative ability simultaneously to now show similar results, its arrival may have created a conflict that upset a long-standing balance between desire and availability in regards to mating habits. Narrative perception made women more selective and more able to enforce their selection. This led to the male's perception that, on the whole, the females were less receptive than the male's own biology was insisting (and dimly remembering via instinctive expectations) that the females should be. Both genders had visions and eureka moments brought about by their Post-Cinema abilities. But only the males capitalized on them to establish belief systems so that they could re-establish their access to females.

Males used Post-Cinema perception to restore the balance by establishing societies where, if a guy follows the rules, sexual gratification is a birthright. Everything about a Type A authoritarian society is built around that one core motivation. Either as an elitist entitlement or a Heavenly reward, access to receptive females that are otherwise socially blank and silent is the pinnacle of success that corrects the ancient imbalance. A birthright can't be a person, so a maximal effort from these entitled citizens went into bringing the hammer down on women's narrative ability. Women were denied their Trioonity and forced to live within the chunk-limit. There are many ways to do that. Some are as simple as never allowing a woman to speak more than four beats before interrupting her. There must be no Beat One for females. It is the thin end of the wedge.

In the conflict between the religious and secular views, there is no greater blow to deliver than challenging everyone's perception and treatment of women. Men did not precede women. Science suggests it was the other way around. There is no other reason, other than sexual frustration, for males to need to decide what to do about females. If civilization came along for some other reason, why is it male dominated? Self-narrating Type B citizens find themselves in a world of muddled gender roles as we slowly grant that women can vote and hold office, be priests, surgeons, lawyers and even the Big Boss. Family life involves much more than males being strong, aggressive protectors and females being nurturing. Untraditional models have proven to be functional. All that had been declared by natural necessity to be impossible, has turned out to be not. The males need to own up to why there are so many things that need to be undone. Men traditionally earn more money than women. Good. That will help them foot the bill.

Women are the crux of how we got into this mess and they are the key to the way out. Trioon points to two vital courses of action. First, we need to spend trillions on putting every girl on earth in a school and use the full might of our military to protect them. Perhaps in retired missile silos. The other side seems to have a better intuitive understanding of this issue as demonstrated by their efforts to stop schooling for girls. Boys can attend school along with the girls as long as they follow the new rules. This time, rules designed entirely by girls. Second, world leaders need to band together and in one voice say that a free secular education for women is the metric by which we will determine whose side you're on. Those who straddle the A-B fence will have to get off and stand plainly on one side or the other. Those who stand with their dicks must be laid low.

In addition, there must be no further illusions about 'Westernism'. Christians are attempting to use their ownership of Westernism to claim secular advancements as their own, too. They forget that these advancements were hard fought battles against the Church which surrendered to secular concessions. Secular Humanism is not Western. Read the name… it's human. The roots of Westernism are just as ignorant, brutal, misogynistic and inherently sexual as any Type A society on earth. Secularists wish to defeat Westernism as much as the jihad groups if by infinitely milder methods. Asking a Muslim community to secularize might be a little easier than asking them to Westernize. And it is much more graceful to share how we shook off Westernism, no… are shaking off Westernism… before we try to inspire and encourage them to shake off Middle Easternism.

Lastly, males must admit that, biologically and instinctively, they do not desire access to females that are self-narrators. This is because there is no ancient imbedded perception of a self-narrating female. There is only the more recent and twisted characterization of females designed to flatter our conception of civilization. We are slowly building a new perception of women in society and we must see the process through. Self-narrating males must use their narrative ability to update their perception of the object of their desires and discover a new path to receptivity and the access that is no one's birthright. The old path must be closed with the severest possible sanctions.

This will demand a re-examination of how we look at things and our long-established perceptions. We can't use traditional contexts of evaluation because those are the long-established perceptions that need to be re-examined. There are scores of new contexts of evaluation or, theories of mind, attempting to address what faces us all. None have yet managed to trace any useful line in the sand. Trioonity is the perception that can get the job done and bring clarity to the fight.