Three steps to disaffection

Definition. We consider relations* over a finite set {1, ..., n} of n elements. The relations corresponding to the single elements {1}, ..., {n} we term void-relations, the relations corresponding to pairs of elements {1, 1}, ..., {1, n}, ..., {n, 1}, ..., {n ,n} we term direct relations and the relations corresponding to the complementary sets {2, ..., n}, ..., {1, ..., n-1} of the single elements we term complementary relations. (in German Leere-, direkte und komplementäre Verhältnisse.)

Human behaviour depends on the analysis of the complementary and the void-relation of the person in question relative to significant groups of others, the purpose of which usually is to find out in which area one might make a difference, for instance the analysis of the complementary (the world without me) relation might give White men can't jump. and the analysis of the void-relation I'm a natural born basketball player.

The interest of this article however lies in the structure of the complement, i.e. in what happens, when n is small.

n=1. If a person is isolated, then there is no complementary relation to study, and hence the person's behaviour will be self-indulgent (selbstgefällig in German).

n=2. If there are only two people in a group, then the complement is the self-indulgent other, and hence the analytical person's behaviour will be conciliatory, striving to attain a working balance between the interests of the two parties concerned (entgegenkommend in German).

n=3. If there are three people in a group, then the complement is the balanced pair of others, and hence the analytical person's behaviour will be manipulative, trying to tip the balance in his own favour (manipulativ in German).

n=4. If there are four people in a group, then the complement is the warring set of three, and the analytical person's behaviour will be one of disaffected profiting (teilnahmsloses Gewinnstreben in German).

n>4. The analysis of the complementary relation leads to the same result as in a group of four.

The soul has three parts (Lust (ger.), heed and care) and a person can choose any of these over the other two (or rather be born with a preference of one of these over the other two, but that's not the point currently in question) and so we end up with three potential groups of acolytes A, B, C.

A tribal society consists of acolytes of only one group and it is self-indulgent.

A high culture consists of acolytes of two different groups and it is conciliatory.

And a heap consists of acolytes of all three groups and it is manipulatively at war with itself.

Had God divided the soul into more than three layers, then societies could not die in heaps and be reborn, but instead heaps would merely be transitional stages on our way into an eternal prison called hive (Schwarm in German, alongside Stamm, Hochkultur und Haufen).

* commonsensically understood, i.e. the values of a function over the set of all m-relations, 0<m<n, over the aforementioned finite set formally mathematically understood.