Threesology Research Journal
Novum Organum Threesiarum
(New Instrument of Threes)
- page ten -

(The Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org


While we can cite the duality between:


  • Monism and Dualism
  • Monism and Pluralism
  • Dualism and Pluralism

We should also cite that these Dichotomizations are manufactured ones, as are all similar forms whether we call the dualisms, dualities or dichotomies. They are artificial constructs of the human mind that may or may not have a direct link with some tangibly observable content such as temperature differentiation called hot and cold. However, the usage of the word "artificial" is not meant to be construed that we are lying or pretending since a child's playground also is an artificial construct but is nonetheless real.


But there should be some cognizant level of acknowledgment which tells us whether an idea is based on something tangible, or is simply an idea with a similar structure that has no readily available tangibility. For example, temperature differentiation that is felt and labeled hot and cold may similarly be referenced as bad and good, according to someone's preference perception. In other words, while the terms "bad and good" are not direct indicators referencing temperature differences, they are nonetheless, in this context of explanation, based on real phenomena that can be widely identified. But if we were to use the terms "OOg" and "Ugg", such referencing is more difficult.


If the labels are alternatively changed several more times, a distinction becomes even more difficult. If each of the alternatives are taken up by different individuals or groups who use them to represent their own value systems which comprise a whole system of ulterior motives on the part of the speakers, the original reality related to an actual tangibility is lost and an artificial one becomes established as a reality unto itself. The duality then becomes a real artificiality but is not a real actuality. A "real actuality" pertains to everyone, whereas a "real artificiality" pertains to a select individual or group who may or may not want everyone to be included in the artificiality in order to obscure its true identity.


If one person (or label) participates in a false identity, there are more to question what the person (or label) says or does. If there are two people (or labels), the two can conspire by supporting one another like someone giving false testimony in an attempt to persuade others of an innocence or rightness that they themselves may not also possess. If three or more persons (or labels) are involved, an underlying truth can be greatly more obscured.


(Like a mystery writer involving themselves with an intentional obfuscation to give the reader the impression they are more intelligent than they actually are... such as changing their minds near the end of their story about a minor character arbitrarily chosen to be found guilty of some act, but is a choice based on stupidity like saying a dog drove a car into a lake to kill a cat laying asleep in the back seat, because it was jealous of the cat receiving so much attention from the owner.)


Unraveling a basic truth is made more difficult if the person or label is made into a contrast that are then provided a tertiary collective exponent which appears to be a logical counter-part... or at least is made to appear as such. For example, if I say "yes" and then produce the label "no" and call it the opposite, the basic value of the "yes" might well be altered to include the now occurring "no". And the addition of the label "no" may stir debates as well as entire philosophies based on a two-label value system. If I then add the label "maybe" to these two, the overall problem of attempting to discern a basic truth with respect to "Yes", becomes even more complicated.


For example, most people realize that a person can get a sunburn if they remain in the Sun too long. Such people don't need to have graduated from highschool, much less earn one or more university degrees to understand this. But someone with a highschool diploma may also cite the need for some Sun in order to supply the body with a natural source of Vitamin D and that the reference about getting a sunburn is rather a simple idea that "everyone" knows. A person with a University degree might also cite the possibility of getting cancer from an over-exposure to the Sun and view the other two items of information as rather obvious. So the person without a highschool diploma and the person with the highschool diploma now include the information from the person with a University degree. With "everyone" now citing all three references, the highschool graduate and the University graduate seek out information that the other may not have, and may even make something up... though the idea may be speculative. With each successive turn of a one-upmanship, in that each tries to out do the other, the basic observation of the Sun's effects become further removed. References about references about other references become the main topic of concern and expression while the basic truth about Sun effecting human behavior is lost in the shuffle.


For example, people no longer can see that the concept of the "three persons in one god" idea is related to the pristine influence of the three "moments" (Dawn - Noon - Dusk) in one Sun. Humanity complicates simplicity and obscures truth in the process. Humanity likewise does not see this configuration as a 3 to 1 ratio or that it is a pattern occurring in other subjects. However, if and when the theological community does acknowledge it and agrees with it, such knowledge will be kept hidden so as to keep everyone in the mindset of providing tithing to a belief that is now found to be inaccurate. They want the public to believe in the old Trinitarian doctrine or at least to be embroiled in nonsensical discussions thereof, so as to keep it tied to their manipulative control.




Triplicity (14K)

Distinctions about singularity, duality and trichotomy sometimes even overlook the simplest of parallels such as using the labels of Monotomy - Dichotomy - Trichotomy. The parallelization is made more difficult if a person is basing their perception strictly on the words and their vocabulary is small or their experience with lots of different subject matter is equally diminutive. Such people will not, in the same breath of simple addition, cite the Trichotomy of Monism - Dualism - Pluralism, which can be contrasted to these examples.


However, and this is an important point, the usage of the word "Pluralism" can mean three or more, while a usage of the word "Trichotomy" is a strict reference to three. While both signify pattern-of-three concepts, the usage of the word "plurality" may or may not give the reader the impression that, while acknowledging the inclusion of other multiples, the "three" is the dominant multiple. A old term slightly offered as a represntative model of this idea might be "Tri-Plicity" or "Tri-Plurality" (using a capital "P"), though other varieties might be coined.


All such examples, with the "three" signaling plurality, can be viewed as alternatives for describing the "One - Two - Many" word-for-quantity association as regularly cited in the history of mathematics in the description of developmental counting limits.


And yet, as an indication of mental processing, this area of brain-mind (physiological) development is not typically addressed, for example, in the History and Systems of Psychology as Professed by Dr. Warren:


PSYCHOLOGY 461,
HISTORY AND SYSTEMS OF PSYCHOLOGY,
DR. WARREN R. STREET

Despite all the marvelous information his course provides, (as indicated by the syllabus), like so many of those courses similar to his own which have a (conscious or unconsciously) professed orientation towards explicating a recurrence of patterns-of-two, they do not give an indication of any 1 - 2 - 3 maturational development sequence with respect to the mind; as a sort of recital of what takes place, for example, with the one - two - three Germ layers development when comparing simple to complex organisms. (Humans, as a complex organism grow from three germ layers labeled Endoderm - Mesoderm - Ectoderm; while less complex organisms come from less than three.)


Attempting to think in a "threes" perspective is at present, in the realm of a pseudo-science— based philosophy much as the yin and yang doctrine with proponents that convince themselves that they have achieved some higher level of understanding by some amalgamated proportioning of the dichotomy. In fact, although this is just a guess, such a three-patterned mathematical model of thinking may not be a regular topic studied by any similar type of historical overview in any subject area (outside the provenance of a history of mathematics).


This "one - two - many" trio in the form of "Monism - Dualism - Pluralism" is another duality when contrasted with the ideas of dichotomy. (In other words, a three versus two.) It is just not referenced as an historical dichotomy. People generally do not know how to think in terms of a "three" as an identity unto itself. They think of a "three" as some sort of variegatedly proportioned compromise or some typically unconsidered perspective suggesting an assumed extreme digression from one of the two polarized ends... if in fact that's what they are or only exist as such by way of conventional description.


crimepoverty (8K)

Again and again different people are relying on a mentality of dichotomization to illustrate an assumed singular point between two points of reference, even if the two points are not clearly designated as diametrically opposed contrasts. It is the illusion of a "three" perspective having been achieved. It is a metaphysic. It's not that the "three" (whatever it actually is) does not exist, but that we are contouring the latent "emerging" image to coincide with a two-patterned orientation that may have nothing whatsoever to do with the two, but we refuse to let go of the behavior of dichotomization as if a "three" and a "two" are inseparable. Take for example the use of a two-circle Venn diagram overlapped to suggest an inter-connection. While in some instances poverty can be linked to crime, on the whole, the percentage appears to be small in terms of felonies being committed, even though the items denoted as "poverty" and "crime" are not specific since each could entail varying types and forms. To suggest, as George Bush Jr. did that poverty causes crime, is an absolutely ignorant remark.


And a word needs to be said about the usage of circles, which is second in the line-up sequence of linear - circular - triangular, to denote single, double, triple, even though a correlation of "one" with a line and "two" with a circle are not easily apprehended since they are being used to denote a progression of complexity, a list of which appears on this page: Novum Organum Threesarium page a.


While there are many other geometric forms which could be used (including an infinity symbol), we must ask why is the circle form most often used and provided with a term such as "Venn", but other geometric forms may not be, though they are used for a similar context? In answering my own question: Simply put, because humans resort to mimicry. Mimicry produces a status quo which produces a familiarity brought on by expectation which can be used to promote acceptance. To use the unfamiliar, such as a triangle in a similar way, might introduce a slight hesitation in the minds of some. Unfamiliarity can breed apprehensiveness. The humans of today are not that far removed from their primate past where survivable rested on a behavior of hyper-vigilance and alarm to something unfamiliar. (Which means if you are going to introduce an unfamiliar idea you must warn your audience that you are going to present something which may be unfamiliar to them.)


CandP2 (3K) CandP3 (7K)

Oh what a trick our mind has played on humanity if it turns out the so-called dichotomies are actually some mislabeled centralization of some actual extremes not yet comprehended! In other words, what if the concept of hot and cold, for example, is not a description of diametrically opposed positions, but represent a thin line medial position between two actual extremes not yet realized? Like two opposites standing back to back but are in the center of a room whose greater distances up ahead can not be perceived. Such is the state of particle physics with its varying mentalities of contrasts. It needs a new vision for purposeful exploration.


By looking at dualities (dichotomies) as a set, each represents a singular set with one character being unable to exist without the other, like two conjoined twins. In most cases, if we in the present age attempt to split conjoined twins by way of our current level of surgical knowledge and skill, the two will die because we exist in a backwards, backwater, behind-the-back social reality. This is how our minds are working, and education persists in teaching people to view reality in such explicitly designed backward terms. Education systems do not know how to teach a truer perspective of Trichotomization. As a set, dichotomies are one, and any combination (proportion) thereof exists as part of the set even if the ego of a person wants to make a claim for having developed a new idea. It nonetheless is an idea belonging to the respective set of a dichotomy. It is not a third entity. It does not represent the development of a new set.


For example, "One" is a set of one. But it can not exist when a mentality is determinately focused on recognizing it solely based on a contrast. Likewise, a contrast called a dichotomy or duality, also is a set. Combining the two terms into some proportion labeled as harmony or balance does not produce a third set. A separate third set has three independent members. While we might want to call three inter-dependent members a trio, triad, or trinity, it is an inter-dependent set like that of a dichotomy. Such are dichotomies. They are inter-dependent. If the members of a dichotomy attempt to stand alone, both will dissipate. Hence, we can identify independent, dependent, and inter-dependent sets. Independent characters of the set can stand alone. (A long life span.) Dependent characters rely on a juxtaposition of independent and inter-dependent sets but may stand for a time alone. (An indeterminate life span.) Inter-dependent characters must rely on each other for existence. (Otherwise having a short life span.)


Mythology is replete with examples of a mentality focused on two inter-dependent characters such as Romulus and Remus. However, there also are examples of a single and triple orientation such as a one-eyed Cyclops and three-headed dog named Cerebus, as well as three winged sister monsters called the Gorgon, one of which (named Medusa) had a multi-snake head of hair. I do not recall reading if there was a numerically-based line-up as to which of these three were born first, etc., thus providing evidence of birth-order referencing. The reason for bringing up these few mythology examples is to suggest that the usage of dichotomies may be an extension of the ancient two-patterned orientation... indicating a cyclicity of human thought or a rut, or some sort of hang-up that we can't seem to overcome and grow beyond.


And stated again with different words, while some may want to posture their ego onto some presumed higher primate branch of intellectual achievement by proposing that the way in which THEY have combined the two represents a third entity, this is fanciful philosophy. The desire for the attainment of an actual third is the exploration into developing that which is a metaphysic. This is not to say that a "third" doesn't exist as a separate reality, but the "third" representation of that which is being claimed with respect to a dichotomous "set", is merely a third of the same set. The set of two has been divided to produce 3 thirds of itself, regardless of how they are proportioned percentage-wise.


An example of this "fanciful philosophy" is being espoused by the irrationality to rationalize a social acceptance of homosexuality as a system of logic equal to or superseding heterosexuality, based on various emotionalisms. What we have are two individuals (two Monisms) pairing together (a dualism) that is, on some occasions by some of them, promoting itself as a third gender or third type of lifestyle betwixt celibacy and heterosexuality in terms of a family unit. And this is rendered despite all the varieties of lifestyle one might want to interject such as bigamy, threesomes, partner exchange, incest, prostitution, whoredom, promiscuity, adultery, etc..., most of which are little more than expressions of being promiscuous primates in a jungle.


I use these three to denote a one - two - many proportion consistent with the discussion at hand. Homosexuality is a duality of contrasts (for example, many pair off into male and female roles within the relationship), and can easily convince themselves that they express a third "higher" relationship formula so long as they remain within the set's mentality. But even those heterosexuals claiming a "live and let live" philosophy have joined into the set's perspective. In short, it is not an advancement in human cognition, it's simply the application of an old way of thinking into a larger sphere of expression in another form that is concealing its adoption as exemplifying an "Age of Irrationality" where the irrational is being rationalized as acceptable. It is being exercized in legislation, law, religion, science, education, journalism, sports, business, music, literature, etc...


In returning to our book analogy mentioned on the previous page, while we may cite a book as being in a collection of thousands, and individually number it in these terms such that we might number it the twelve thousandth volume; we do not call each addition as the representation of a separately identified collection... as if our collection had an offspring. The word "collection" represents a set of books just as does a dichotomy represents a set of contrasted ideas. Without one, the other can not exist as a separate, singular identity. It's like a woman not having the identity of being a woman without being contrasted with that of a man. Or a chicken being unable to exist with an egg and vice versa. They are a set, and as a set, they are a singularity.


With respect to either a public or private library of books, the collection is not numbered as "collection one" and each book added thus means we have more than one collection, though we might well divide the entire collection into separate categories and label the different collections of materials as a separate library. Similarly, each sleeve of a shirt does not represent a separate shirt even though we pluralize the word "pant" with the usage of "pants"; this still does not mean we have more than one. This usage is from the ancient association of counting each leg wrapping (legging) separately and in some instances were (later in history) called "pantaloons" (because they were puffed out like balloons) or "trousers", even though the pluralization of the word "glove" to produce "gloves" appears to most as appropriately authentic in description of two separate items collectivized with a singular word.


The "S" in terms of pluralization has, in some instances, taken the place of "Many", which, in an old numbering scheme, was the third and last number-word after One and Two. The purpose for bringing this up is to provide an historical example of a one- two - many mental schematic that was achieved as the brain developed. Number values beyond the 3rd reference "Many" were a metaphysic: a-yet-to-come (but not yet existing rational number) that later changed into a metaphysic-in-the-making, which eventually became "solidified" into a conscious concept by way of having tangibly recognizable constructs with which to associate "higher" number ideas...


However, as noted in the history of words-for-quantity development, there were different number limits, with each greater word-related-to-quantity as a type of metaphysic... an entity to be achieved, but in many instances, not even existing as a shadow in some peoples minds. Hence, even before the word "one" (or its language equivalent in a given culture) was even thought of, it may well have existed as some pre-verbalized mental image. After it was fashioned, then the concept of "two" became a metaphysic. And then "three", and so forth. But I do not know the length of duration which may have been experienced between each concept formation or whether the duration was the same length of time for every culture. I do not know if the first three number words were the hardest to come by, in terms of length of time for development or was readily grasped by most or all members of the culture very quickly, or that all concepts-of-quantity take a similar amount of time and adaptation to different cultural contexts having different numerical needs (commerce, communication, visualizing, independent serialization, reflective subtizing, etc...). Also, is the behavior of quantitative concepts a singular issue in and of itself, such that it represents the first of yet another series of to-be-developed form of thinking?


The usage of such a reference as this provides an illustration of what I am referring to when I use the word "metaphysic" so that it does not remain a vague notion to the reader or is implied to necessarily mean an outgrowth, process or development. Whereas we may grow into a grasp of something, this does not necessarily mean it is a direct or indirect outgrowth of a previous idea. Whereas some might want to argue that a "flash of genius", Eureka! moment, or unexpected insight is the product of previously memorized information, what then of serendipity?


What of something totally unexpected? While we use accumulated knowledge to interpret and define the event into some measure of comprehension, it may not at all be what we were searching for or trying to accomplish. It seems to have appeared out of nowhere. Some may want to say that (a) god gave it to them, as has occurred throughout history, what do we claim as the origin if we don't label it a "god" product? It could well represent an idea discovered along-side the path we are intellectually on, but like an artifact discovered on an expedition, it did not "grow out of" the expedition. In other words it is not an extension of the expedition since it existed whether or not the expedition took place. We found it, we discovered it in terms of locating it when looking for similarly referenced artifacts, but it already existed whether we had existed or not.




Initial Posting Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014


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