Threesology Research Journal
Research into the "Threes" Phenomena
Home Excursion 2B

~ The Study of Threes ~
http://threesology.org




The following list of philosophical "threes" comes from this page:


Threes Poster, 5th column
http://www.threesology.org/3s-poster-5.php


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 Thought
Man, 3rd Thought
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
Jesus Christ's 3 Praises: In the name of the Father ~ Son ~ Holy Spirit
Samuel Clemmons' 3 lies:
(Mark Twain)
Lies ~ Damned Lies ~ Statistics
Abe Lincoln's 3-For-All Some: Of the People
By the People
For the People

H.O.B. note: Lincoln had removed the word "All" from a phrase he garnered from a preacher named Theodore Parker. Whether he did this intentionally or absent-mindedly, I don't know. However, there is a dramatic difference by adding it or omitting it; given the present circumstance that the people do not have the Referendum, in which they can vote on issues themselves and the result being made into law. Here is the phrase as cited in a wiki-pedia article on the Gettysburg address, though I had encountered Mr. Parker's phrase years ago before wiki-pedia came into being:


(Lincoln's Law Partner William Herndon): I brought with me additional sermons and lectures of Theodore Parker, who was warm in his commendation of Lincoln. One of these was a lecture on 'The Effect of Slavery on the American People' ... which I gave to Lincoln, who read and returned it. He liked especially the following expression, which he marked with a pencil, and which he in substance afterwards used in his Gettysburg Address:

'Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, for all the people, by all the people."




Jean Chevalier & Alain Gheerbrant
A Dictionary of symbols ©1969
(page 997) ISBN 0-631-19265-4

Zoologists have noted many triads within the human body. It would seem as if every important function of an organism possesses this basic structure. Such observations illustrate the fundamental meaning of the triad as the living wholeness of types of relationship within a complex single structure. It is a mark simultaneously of a being's unique identity and of its internal multiplicity, of its relative stability and of the mobility of its components, of its immanent independence and of its dependence. The triad is as useful a channel of dialectic in the logical exercise of thought as of movement in physics and of living matter in biology. The basic rationale of this universal phenomenon of threes must no doubt be sought in a metaphysics of composite and contingent being and in a global view of the manifold oneness of being - appearance, development and destruction (or transformation); or birth, growth and death; or again, in Astrological tradition, increase, culmination and decrease.


3-part Logic

Thesis ~ Antithesis ~ Synthesis
Indulgence  ~ "Middle Way" ~ Ascetism
Major Premise  ~ Minor Premise ~ Conclusion
Contradiction ~  Excluded  Middle ~ Identity Principal
"God-ology":
Omnipresent
Omnipotent
Omniscient
"Metaphysics-ology":
What is real
How change comes
What is mind
Marxian "Dialectology":
Unity of opposites
Quantity & quality
Negation of negation
Epistemology:
How we know
What is truth
What is mind
Axiology:
Nature of good
Nature of beautiful
Nature of religious
Ontology:
Quality (1st-ness)
Relation (2nd-ness)
Representation (3rd-ness)


3-part syllogism expressed by some children:


Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear
Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair
Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't Fuzzy was he?



While the above list of philosophical "threes" is a framework, of sorts, it is more in line with a "thrown together assemblage" of interpretations about different philosophers viewpoints, that they themselves may not have had. Many Philosophers, regardless of topic, may not have intentionally used a "pattern-of-three" and such a pattern is seen only by one or more readers thereof as part of an analytical interpretation. The distinction for such a usage may be due to someone else's interpretation. In fact, a particular person may repeatedly have used one or more "threes" and not been consciously aware of such a usage. In certain instances we might find a pattern-of-three being attributed to a person's ideas as developed by way of an interpretation made by someone else because they feel/think such would be helpful to others... yet they also may not be aware they are using a pattern-of-three, even though their usage is more explicit and innumerated. This is not bad nor wrong, but should be a threes example pointed out as a later development that is characteristically identified (and made use of) by someone else.


      

In a biological framework utilizing a three-patterned schema, an approach has to begin somewhere, with the proviso that it may have to be altered since analysis of an assumption may have to be accepted or refuted when new information comes to light. With this said, let us say that life begins with DNA, RNA and Proteins. With respect to current views held around the world, all three contain an identifiable "three" label, in the sense that DNA and RNA utilize a triplet coding (codon) system, and proteins have a Primary- Secondary- Tertiary structure, with collagen (the most important protein in mammals), having a Triple helix structure. However, upon identifying that collagen has a triple helix structure, let us also note that DNA and RNA are said to have double helix structures. Thus, our biological "threes" framework begins to branch (or perhaps I should say begins to "root") itself into more basic structural components. This is an important consideration since it directly relates to research involving which of these three "macromolecules" (DNA, RNA, Proteins), arose first on the pristine scene of biological development. Necessarily so, it also points out that "threes" can have a developmental line of ascent beginning with less than three. Hence, we are inclined to acknowledge a 1 - 2- 3 (overlapping) developmental sequence. Such an overlapping is easily recognized when we note that the so-called quaternary (four) structure in proteins is due to a compilation of the primary, secondary, and tertiary structures. Thus, we might more appropriately define this as a 3 (in)to 1 ratio.


      

The following information comes from:


Bio-physiological 3s page 2
 http://www.threesology.org/bio-physiological-3s-2.php

One of the central questions of current molecular biology is which of the three fundamental biopolymers arose first?


  1. Was it RNA?

  2. Was it DNA?

  3. Was it Protein?


3 origin theories can be realized by consideration of the three biopolymers:


  1. RNA or DNA or Proteins came first. (single origin hypothesis)

  2. RNA or DNA and Proteins came first. (double origin hypothesis)

  3. RNA, DNA, and Proteins came first (simultaneously?). (triple origin hypothesis)


The dual and triple origin hypothesis suggest a simultaneous or somewhat of a simultaneous development that may have occurred in separate environments and somehow became mixed.


For additional related comments:


--- The RNA World by Brig Klyce ---
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm




What came first?

If we look at the number of strands of each of these, we find RNA is predominantly single stranded, DNA is predominantly double stranded, and Proteins may have a primary ~ secondary ~ tertiary structure, with a composite called the quaternary. Clearly, each of these has a "1" and a "2" in that we can find some RNA with a double strand and some DNA with a single strand. If the numerical quantity of strands is indicative of placement of arrival on the biological scene, then one might want to conclude that they may have all arrived, in some form, simultaneously.


At this point, a few readers may thus form an excursion into the realm of physics since these three macromolecules could not be possible without the three basic components of atoms, namely electrons - neutrons - protons. While such an excursion will eventually have to be addressed, let us leave it for another time and continue to proceed from a biological perspective. For some, the logical step is to include the three domains of life, namely, Archaea - Bacteria - Eucaryota (an idea designed by Carl Woese in 1977) which has, in some perspectives, superseded the old five kingdom system developed by Robert Whittaker in 1969, though the five kingdoms were based on 3 levels of organization. {Additionally, it should be noted, that there was an earlier two-kingdom system developed by Carl Linnaeus in 1735... thus providing us with a 2 to 3 maturational development example occurring in human thinking. An earlier "one" kingdom system may have been used by someone, but it is not historically indicated with any certainty.}


Today, some prefer to use a six Kingdom array: Plants, Animals, Protists, Fungi, Archaebacteria, Eubacteria. Others may want to take more of a general approach, for the point of mere inclusion in our list of threes, that life can be characterized as being either sea, land or air dominant, though overlappings can occur. Others may think that the natural course is to include the invertebrate animals (those without a backbone), since they came before we humans and must be included in the development of a biologically based "threes" framework. This framework should include the acknowledgment of Viruses to the three domains of life portrayal, thus providing us with another 3 to 1 ratio... a pattern that has relevance in later discussions in our attempts to identify that which may have set biology on a course of "threeness" and gives an indication of where the "3" is headed.


               

The following information comes from:


Threes Poster, 2nd column
http://www.threesology.org/3s-poster-2.php

*** The Arthropods are the largest phylum of invertebrate animals with jointed legs, a segmented body and an exoskeleton, including insects, crustaceans, arachnids and myriapods.


  1. In 1866 Ernst Haeckel proposed a Monophyletic theory of Arthropoda evolution.

  2. In 1894 Moseley proposed a theory of Arthropoda evolution.

  3. Tiegs and Manton (1958), Anderson (1973), and Manton (1973, 1977) have presented strong arguments in favor of a Polyphyletic theory of Arthropoda evolution.


This third theory is based on evidence derived largely from comparative embryology and functional morphology which heavily supports dividing the Arthropods into three natural groups, each with the rank of phylum. The term "arthropods" thus becomes an indication of a particular grade of advancement and no longer has taxonomic status. The 3 phyla of this theory are the Chelicerata, Crustacea and the Uniramia. This theory requires the acceptance of the idea that an extensive evolutionary convergence has taken place. (In other words, a "fusion" has/is taking place.)


Tiegs and Manton, to the idea of an original three-segmented head (seen in modern Onychophora), have added progressively, Mandibular, First Maxillary, and Second Maxillary (labial) segments, giving rise to the "Monognathous", "Dignathous", and "Trignathous" conditions, respectively. There has been found no trace of the Monognathous condition. The Dignathous condition is found in the Pauropoda and Diplopoda and Trignathous condition is seen in the Chiopoda (in which the second maxillae remain leglike) and the Symphyla and Hexapoda (in which the second maxillae fuse to form the labium).




The following is a diagram indicating the main features of adult limb structures in arthropods:


  1. biramous

  2. uniramous

  3. primitively biramous


...with the exite/outer ramus more proximally placed than in crustaceans.


arthro (8K)  
epi = epipodite; endo = endopodite; exo = exopodite; b = basipodite; c = coxopodite

As can be clearly seen in the simplified illustration, the Uniramia have (1) podite, the Chelicerata have (2) podites and the Crustacea have (3): Epipodite - Endopodite - Exopodite, in spite of the fact that the Crustacea are labeled biramous.




   

*** The Oligoneoptera (bees, wasps, ants, beetles, lice, flies, fleas, etc.) are characterized by the presence of a pupal stage between the juvenile and adult phases of development. Several theories (and attendant stage labels) have been proposed to account for the development of the pupal stage within the 3 distinct stage system. The differing theories, except for H.E. Hinton's (1963) which has attracted attention said to be due to its simplicity, revolve around arguments generally Centered on (1) "Suppression of the larval stage" (2) "Compression of the nymphal stage" and (3) "Expansion of the imaginal stage".


              

Again and again and again I am confronted by people who confuse a study in the "Threes Phenomena" with an interest in numbers, particularly the number 3 without distinguishing it as a symbol, quantity, or progressively developed concept representing an approximation of cognitive structure that may or may not be further distinguished from a "three" (quantity) value expressed by other life forms which appear to have some semblance of counting ability.


Let me set the record straight by saying there are separate issues involving the "threes phenomena", according to the way I am interpreting the information I have collected and sorted. This is not just another form of semantic distraction such as we find in the naming of objects involving the usage of long or short vowel sounds in pronunciation: for example,


  • Tomato: (to (mA) to/— to ma toe...
  • Potato: po (tA) to/— po ta to)...

where the same word is pronounced with either a long ("A") or short ("a") sound.


Hence, the "Study of Threes" is not an exclusive study of the number 3 as a numerical quantity; though such a study would be inclusive as yet another Threes Phenomena example such as in the development of the "3" as a symbol that has evolved from forms expressed by different cultures and the development of the "3" as representing a quantitative value alongside other values placed into a number sequence/series or individually.


A repetitive usage of the "three" may be little more than a reference to a planetary influenced environmentally designed biological predisposition. In other words, the Earth's third position from a source of solar energy coupled with an enlarging Sun and a slowing Earth's rotation over billions of years may have induced the development of a triple genetic coding system; which has influenced so many biological/anatomical "threes" which have played a part in so many ideas with a "three" pattern. However, it's not that we can't find exceptions to the "threes formula" such as the seven dwarfs of Snow White, which may well suggest the era in which the idea was initially formulated, it's that many exceptions are a part of a larger threes-based theory of developmental usage. While an other-than-three example may at first glance appear to refute a falsely presumed threes-based universality claim; it's that the "three" remains a recurring rule-of-thumb, however intellectually primitive one might care to define a reference concerning the "three."


As a Threesologist I work with several questions such as:


  • How wide-spread is the "Threes-Phenomena"?

  • Will re-defining "The Threes-Phenomena" assist in greater understanding and teaching?

  • Is the Phenomena increasing or is the increase simply due to increased reporting?

  • Are other similar number/symbol-identified phenomena increasing or decreasing?

  • What is the origin of the Threes phenomena?

  • Do Indo-Europeans use more "threes" than Asian or African Cultures?

  • Is there an increase in "threes" in Asian and African cultures after contact with Indo-Europeans? (And more so if a country "occupies" a country with a military base such as the U.S. in Germany, Japan and South Korea? What about occupations by France and England?)

  • Is there any culture, sub-culture or group using more "threes" than another or others?

  • Do the infants of Asian and African cultures express the same 1- 2- 3 babbling and language sequences but for one reason or another the adults suppress a further developmental usage thereof?

  • Are the "three" fusing into a singularity just as the three "moments" (dawn - noon - dusk) are fusing as the Sun expands and the Earth's rotation slows?

  • Will infants (or insects, or some other biological form) be the first to "express" tell-tale signs of planetary influenced biological effects (yet we don't know how to interpret the "information" posed to us in an unfamiliar language)?

  • Are three-into-one "fusion" effects already being expressed in other, more simpler life forms, if not humans? (genetically, physically, socially, culturally, etc...)

  • ETC.


See additional 3 -to- 1 examples here: --- 3 -to- 1 ratios page a ---


A study in the "Threes Phenomena" as a distinction from a study involving a quantitative (numerical) value labeled "Three", needs to be a part of a researcher's tool box of considerations. There are a variety of comparisons one might make.


  1. For example, in the realm of theology, while the three topics of God, Religion and Morality are intertwined inseparately by what many readers might cite as the "common intellect", more intensified scrutiny of these three topics realizes they are issues which are commonly divisioned by most people and given a contextual (time, place, situational) proportion; and should be, at times, considered individually, but the used proportionality is approximated into a singular concept whole. Thus stated, God is not religion nor morality. Religion is not God nor morality. And morality is not Got nor religion. While some readers might occasion to present the notion that the inverse principals of each need not be stated, they should be in order to start from a simplification for those readers who are unfamiliar with such extensions of intellectual consideration.

    By combining the Three of Religion, God and Morality, the disguised Triunity is interpreted to be a natural-state rationality. It is a presumption which causes enormous grief and suffering throughout the world because of the wide-spread mis- interpretations, mis-representations and mis-understanding. It is difficult for many readers to even consider whether or not the topics of Religion, God and Morality are irrational concepts. Unfortunately, many readers might take offense and react emotionally in a knee-jerk fashion by citing some example they might be concerned with. It is difficult for them to have a philosophical discussion which is detached from their emotions. They confuse philosophical discussion with what someone actually believes. For them, what a person says is what they believe or otherwise, they are liars or manipulators who say one thing but do or believe another.


  1. A second example is the usage of a more familiar entity which is more advantageous for the initialized Threes Phenomena discussion at hand. This "Threes" entity is the Triune government structure known as the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. While most people typically don't emphasize a "Three" pattern nor use labels such as Trinity, Triune nor some made-up colloquialism such as as Triplexity, it none-the-less has THREE overall categorized parts called three branches. While these parts have numerous sub-categories variously described as departments, committees, offices, etc., they are all supposed to function cohesively, though retaining independent characteristics... despite the realities encountered when dealing with human interactions and contradicting entanglements that many of us are all too familiar with when appraising the society of humanity from an Anthropological, Sociological, or Historical perspective.


  1. As a third example, many of us would remark there are three basic sub-atomic particles to atoms (Electrons - Neutrons - Protons), but we would rarely refer to them as a Trinity, Triplexity or Triune structure. In this instance, the point to be made is that our research efforts may be so intensified towards apprehending examples of Threes which reference a specific label, that we overlook those examples which may list individual groupings of threes yet not make any overt usage of a "Three" label.


As researchers interested in the "Threes Phenomena" we can focus strictly on the quantitative aspects, and/or individual parts and how they inter-twine, if they do or not and how frequent or infrequent. An example of this can be found in the research of those following in the footsteps of Georges Dumezil with his Trifunctional analysis of Indo-Europeans. While some might prefer to interpret the "Trifunctionality" as an indication of a superior socio-religious design, others wonder why every culture did not adopt such a "strategy". Are the reasons biological, physiological, intellectual or otherwise? Are such peoples different types of hominids? Many different types of questions might be posed.


However, we must also be willing to identify non-"three" specific patterns for quantitative and qualitative comparison. Such comparisons may be part of a larger pattern whether or not the "three" might be viewed as the hub of a larger (more complex or simplified) wheel... even though such an analogy may be wholly inappropriate and misleading, thus being relegated to what may be considered a "primitive" thought. It is an activity all of us, as human animals in our overall global animal society engage in as a necessity of survival while living amongst so very many whose day to day existence is not that far removed from earlier hominid and primitive forms of cognition, not to mention the Schizophrenic-like Bicameralism suggested by Julian Jaynes in his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", though according to a Wikipedia citation about --- Bicameralism ---, the psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist, in his book The Master and His Emissary (ISBN 0300168925, paperback) , says that Jayne's hypothesis was "the precise inverse of what happened" and that rather than a shift from bicameralism there evolved a separation of the hemispheres.


See:
--- I Hear Voices, page A
http://www.threesology.org/i-hear-voices-a.php

An example of such an aforementioned 'primivity of thought' is an attempt to align research into the Threes phenomena with the number 3 and some religious-based trinity, triad, Trimurti, or tri-godhead/person-hood. (Similarly, such as the over-valued Me - Myself - I trinitarian "personhood" used by American corporations to exploit U.S. Citizens to follow like lambs being led to an economic slaughter.) All religious-based patterns-of-three are not THE explanation for the existence of the Threes Phenomena, but are themselves little more than examples thereof. Religious-minded people can be extremely ego-centric because they are not exempt from the foibles of human characteristics, though many presume some infallibility clothed with that which they define as humility... and persuade others to believe likewise.


Like the centuries old ideas that the Sun revolved around the Earth or one's kingdom should be placed in the Center of a small-minded map because a particular king and their domain were felt to be central to all other things; the religious-minded frequently promote the idea that the concept of the Trinity (or a lack of a belief in such), is of a prime defining importance above and beyond all else. Yet, the concept of the "Trinity" is itself a "threes" example based simply on the perspective that it is a newly developed concept that is but a few centuries old. Ancient Egyptians (and others) did not have a Cuneiform character representing the "Trinity" concept with respect to their own religion(s), much less did they adhere to any specifically defined Christ-en doctrine though later-born religious perspectives superimpose their views on the past, pre-christian defined eras.


And, similarly, how often have you read about a "Trinity" presence being practiced by the Mesopotamians (approx. 5000 BC), Summerians (approx. 3000 BC), or some other civilization lumped into a "Babylonian" catch-all research box (that frequently resembles a child's sandbox)? Whereas you may well encounter a writer of near history describing three gods as being of prime importance and thus these three constitute a Trinity, the ancient peoples themselves did not have a formal nor informal "Trinity" concept... though they may have had one and took it completely for granted... even to the extent of not describing it for later historians. Generally speaking, the label "Trinity" is the result of compartmentalizing three individual items into a single representation. It signifies a change that has taken place in the human brain. Religions are little more than practiced survival mechanisms that wax and wane as human cognition changes due to brain growth and deterioration based on both external and internal pressures.


However, it should be noted, for those readers not voicing objections at this point, that the notion of a "three" concept was becoming more manifest by some (but not all) ancient groups of people. Take for example the ancient Greeks and Romans. Time and again we encounter notions about three fates, three furies, three gorgons, etc... Yet, the usage of the words "three, triad, trinity, etc." must be distinguished with respect to who, when and where so that an ancient and modern usage can be noted. In this regard, a modern usage of the word "Trinity", "Triad", or "Three" may not have been used in the same context or same way as those in the past. For example, it appears the Old Testament characters collectively used less threes than the predominant New Testament character who is, namely, Jesus. The life of Jesus, as described in the New Testament, is replete with patterns-of-three:


--- Threes in the Life of Jesus ---

7swastika (1K)

The New Testament (hence, its writers), were born later in time than the Old Testament writers. In other words, the human brain had changed (in a particular way) as indicated by the increased usage of "threes", whether or not the user is/was aware of such; in contrast to a lesser usage of an earlier period (which may have involved a greater usage of some other "parallelable") identifier such as the number seven, forty, thousand, etc... The number seven (7) for example, in quantity and shape still resembles the once highly influential grouping of stars called the Big Dipper. It is this star grouping, when viewed during the two equinoxes and two solstices, which influenced the origin of the Swastika symbol.


No doubt ancient peoples may have thought they discovered some secret truth of Heaven and/or God when the individualized psychic content of different seasons was amalgamated (combined) into a geometric pictograph. All the Nazis did was to portray a mirror-image of the once viewed good symbol of Universal Brother/Sisterhood to make it represent their claims of Nationalistic superiority.


The Big Dipper (1K)

However, it was a superiority in the fact that it took the efforts of many nations to subdue it... along with its own missteps wrought by overzealous confidence brought on by the easy subjugation of an unprepared and disbelieving world population. It is a population that might well be that which triggers a World War III despite all the precautions taken by the combined military bravado of every militantly oriented group and individual; thanks to all the training provided by watching action movies and kids playing violent video games. The world may surely reap what it is presenting sowing. The so-called free enterprise system may lead to a free-for-all World War III conflict. Not only will it be nation against nation, but the biblical tenet of son against father, daughter against mother, etc., may well come to pass. There might well ensue a madness in which civic leaders (business, education, medicine, religion, government) become the object of concerted individualized attacks as expressions of the anger that is not being vicariously vented in participant or spectator sports, or other common channels of "aggression letting" (blood letting) such as domestic quarrels.


While a pattern-of-three is expressive of a particular quantity, the "three" in word or displayed in a numerical symbol/etching is not meant to be a definitive representation nor explanation; only a commonly recognized means of identifying and communicating a kind/form of structure that several people have recognized and begun to communicate about their similar observations of such. While mathematics uses numbers in its simplest forms of expression, it also uses non-number identifiers related to statements (.), queries (?), and ideas (!)... and the personalities of different mathematicians use the symbols according to their intellectual predispositions of practicality, philosophy or artistic pretensions. (Some mathematicians are quite artistically inclined.)


Unfortunately, as is so often the case in many human practiced activities that creates a history of mimicry and repetition to a state of habituation, our uses of mathematics places human imagination into a type of standardization like the three restrictive moves employed in the games of checkers and chess (Diagonal - Horizontal - Vertical). To think other than the conventional frequently causes alarm by those who expect and demand a strict observance to accepted game playing, whatever the game, and however it is defined. Whether an inherent pattern-of-three is recognized or not, it becomes a trinity by which all Standard Operating Modalities (Procedures) are measured. It limits interpretations, uses and explorations into other realms of consideration that may be of beneficial application. Hence, for example, "threes" organized ideas found in religion, physics, mathematics, biology, etc., become standardized acceptances that can become mental boxes that many become entrapped in.


In other words, the current form of mathematics is not the only form of mathematics available to human cognitive processes... it is but the current form most commonly recognized, taught, and used. Quite probably some of its diehard adherents might profess there is no need for nor possibility of creating anything else... that our present human mathematics, though perhaps in a primitive state, will ultimately provide us with the knowledge we seek. They feel that there is no genuinely original form of mathematics to be devised since that which we have is the stepping stone for all that will follow. They don't believe that a new species of mathematics is possible because they are unable to fathom mathematics as a fluid organism with a viability towards change that some might refer to as adaptation.


Instead of using the symbol (3) or word (three), we could intentionally attempt to conceal these references and focus on some relativistic quality such as some presumed internal functionality (like the three "functions" found in Dumezilian tripartite ideology: Priestly, Warrior, Artisan). Others already do this in their research, thereby obscuring (sometimes unconsciously, sometimes intentionally) their interest in a 3/three-based formula; whereby observers will not be inclined to reduce their genuinely sincere and serious research efforts to an elaborate interest in some form of numerology akin to some huckster's flim-flam marketing ploy to weasel some unsuspecting person into surrendering their last dollar, virtue, or self regard for personal survival. In short, a study in the threes phenomena is not a centralized study about the number three in general or specifically.


Current mathematics, such as the number three (3) being an integer in a series of progressively smaller and larger numbers, is just a form of expression that evolved (along an elementary route) as our human cognitive processes have evolved. Like the myriad branchings of our hominid ancestry, current mathematics is but a branch that may well be supplanted by another species of cognitive expression and inquiry. With respect to Threes Research, it is not specifically about the number 3, though the number as a quantity is related as a tool of identification. In some respects, our collections of "threes" examples are merely rudimentary notches, knots, or triangular (wedge) notations on a modern day clay tablet called the computer.




Interestingly, in the history of number development, there is a recurring reference to three number words being used (in a given culture's own language equivalent way):


  1. The word "One" for the quantity 1.

  2. The word "Two" for the quantity 2.

  3. The word "Many" for any quantity representing 3 or more.


Each of these are mile markers, so to speak, of cognitive limits that were reached before the human mind transitioned into a greater cognitive appreciation. In this same sense, the form of our current mathematics is a similar cognitive limit. From this perspective, it is little more than a primitive's sea shell -for- stone bauble bartering system of exchange. However, most researchers don't recognize this "three" development with other "three" developments occurring in other subject areas. Those researchers that do recognize the similarity of a basic "three" formula are not only acknowledging it as a possible fundamental structure in the development of human cognitive processing, but are asking why? How did this come about? Is that which influenced this pattern an environmentally influenced biological one?




Many of you coming to this site have no idea what a "Threesologist, Triadologist, Treblest, etc.," or a study in "Threes Phenomena" refers to. I have thus moved the previous Home page material to the "Home Excursion 1" section because my enthusiasm for the subject frequently causes me to dive into it instead of taking a gradual approach; which is needed and necessary for the beginner.


A beginner would survey my living quarters and expect to see numerous patterns-of-threes examples as is sometimes shown in portrayed renditions of what some think Leonardo da Vinci's workshop would have been like with respect to his various artistic, engineering, architectural and scientific explorations. Yet a semi-enthusiast would recognize the space as being much too small and my received patronage quite unlike that which enabled Leonardo to exercise his talents on a project in the Sistine Chapel. The committed researcher, on the other hand, would realize the examples have been fused into a single source... namely me and the auxiliary memory device called a computer, along with its multi-tentacled partner called the internet.





Page initially created: March 10, 2013 AM
Last Update (as a single page) posted: April 15, 2014 Spiit into two pages on: April 23, 2014
Latest update (into two pages) posted: April 25, 2014


Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com