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

(The Study of Threes)

The idea of a "missing link" in terms of human evolution is a metaphysic. The link (or links) may well exist but are at present buried. Either in some geological formation or in our lack of ability to recognize what may turn out to be a simplicity. While the idea of a "missing link" is an outgrowth of human ideas regarding human evolution (etc.,), it would exist even without a human appreciation thereof. Our thoughts present us with particular tell-tale signs of what we think we are looking for, but this does not mean our illustrative metaphysic is an accurate portrayal of that which may be eventually found. Like so many ideas, the presently framed "missing link" conception may be the misinterpretation made by a very primitive and superstitious mind using an antiquated descriptive language.

Similarly, while we go about collecting examples of "threes", the "three" reference may be a collection of referenced shadows seen from different perspectives. Metaphorically speaking, Some of us may claim it to be smoke emanating from a fire, but it could be a fog, something in our eye, or that for which we have no presently accurate term to otherwise describe, like trying to describe the concept of peace to those who have no concept thereof because there is nothing to contrast or associate it with because they live in peace and have never known anything else. In terms of the "threes phenomena" research, some examples quite readily give evidence of being descriptions of dichotomies providing a term for some measured proportioned between two oppositions. Or we could say that they are three items representing a singular set called a dichotomy that already provides an example of a proportionality. For example, "Hot - Warm - Cold". In some instances such as this example, we might describe it as a pattern-of-three referencing what is said to be a middle place between two extremes. But, since the meaning of "warm" may be interpreted differently due to physical sensitivity, it represents a proportion. Likewise do the terms "Hot" and "cold".

(Rational numbers Versus Irrational numbers might be cited as another dichotomy as well, without a commonly placed middle example of proportionality.)

As another example, prior to the concept of the Christian Trinity, despite the plurality of gods or assignment of some super-natural quality denoted by a "pagan" (primitive) belief; along with a larger association of people into a civilization, was produced the concept of a single God. This singularity came to be juxtaposed (placed next to) the older dichotomy of good and evil gods and its many alternative representations. Yet, the old dualism has remained largely intact as a singular representation while the One Supreme God concept has taken on various (interchangeable) three-fold formulas (to which we might add "heart, mind, body"):

  • Heart, Mind, Soul
  • Body, Mind, Soul
  • Will, Heart, Mind

But the ideas incorporated by these three examples have become eclipsed by the three -in- one patterned concept known as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit (or Ghost). While the first three examples can be associated primarily with a representation of the human sphere, the three of the Trinity are a concept that is largely separate from retro- (past) and intro- (present)- spective three foregoing examples. Whereas humanity is more closely intermixed with the dualism concept of good and evil in that is is frequently seen as being inferior to it, the Trio of the "godhead" are associated with the idea of being superior to evil.

But even if you prefer to think singularly in terms of describing the concept of a supreme God as being superior to evil, one must consider that this supreme being is also superior to good as part of the same dichotomy, unless one is trying to alter the design of the dichotomy into a monotomy. "Good and Evil" are thus seen as human constructs having nothing whatsoever to do with an actual supreme being that is superior to humanity, which is thus also superior to any concept which humanity could contrive. In such a formula, this supreme god becomes a metaphysic born of a dichotomy with roots that go no deeper and branches reaching no further than a particular stage of human physiology responding to particular environmental circumstances. In fact it may be little more than a representation of an ideal or even idea that may or may not have any actual substance beyond the vague notion it presently describes in various ritualistic contexts that humanity has persuaded itself to believe in, like so many who convince themselves to kill themselves or someone else.

Hence, another dichotomy has surfaced. Whereas humanity is physical, the trio are metaphysical, despite the claims that Jesus was once a real person. The operative word of distinction being "was". He has now become part of a metaphysic used as a intercessionary go-between. The godhead being something for humanity to strive for, but can only achieve by way of revelation or after-death... which is used by many as yet another type of metaphysical domain.

moditric (47K)

Instead of the word "revelation" as used in theology to describe the doctrine of the Trinity as mysterious origin that is above reason but is at the same time not unreasonable, the word "insight" is better suited in order to reveal that it has a physical origin through which humanity has been affected to deduce a vision that is, at the present juncture in human psychological development, a metaphysic. In short, "three -in- one" notion when it is stripped of all its brought-to-the-present antiquated religious garments and ritualisms of dualistic concern modified by present day perspectives, is a metaphor for the "three moments in the one Sun".

The daily 3 -in- 1 pattern of the Sun created an impression on the psyche of humanity upon which was placed numerous inferences related to a prevailing dominant religion mind-set and orientation. But this is not a disparagement. It is a congratulatory note of praise that so many have begun to see the image more clearly, even if it was obscured by religious content. It means that all these people who actually see the pattern have a brain that is more closely attuned with the ongoing and forth-coming evolutionary change. They are mentally better prepared to make the necessary adaptations than those whose brains have not reached this pinnacle of discernment. It suggests that such people are inline for the next "revelatory message".

Just as the Suns three "moments" (dawn - noon - dusk) were at one time viewed as three independent entities, so were the ideas of the Father - Son - Holy spirit. Eventually, the three solar "moments" were recognized as belonging to a single frame of reference, but it was not named a Trinity, though the Sun played a large pre-Christian role as the supreme god "with three aspects". While seeming to divest itself of solar worship, humanity nonetheless kept the same underlying pattern of the "3 -in- one" "revelation" (insight) but changed the associated names. The problem is, if religious people do not reassociate their minds with the original influence of the Trinity concept, they will be unable to recognize how the change in the Trinity concept will parallel the changes taking place as the three moments "fuse" together as the Sun expands along its trek towards an eventual demise.

The human brain is a primitive organ and it utilizes primitive concepts as part of its adaptive survivability. It has developed a hunter-gatherer ethic even though it may not appreciably organize nor utilize what it has gathered. Then again, what has been collected might be well organized yet be used in a singularly specific way. Some such collections have been labeled the accumulations of a hoarder, when the type and amount of one's collection seems extra-ordinarily large or containing items that many would label as junk. Despite the adage that one person's junk is another person's treasure, not all "junk" or "treasure" are put to any use except in terms of the collector's own perspective. With respect to my own perspective involving pattern-of-three examples, I spend a great deal more time trying to apply bits and pieces to the prevailing ideas of others than I do in collecting additional examples. It is indeed a trade-off that I must choose between one or the other, as part of a self-imposed dichotomy. But such excursions are necessary for the sake of those who will come in distant years ahead and want to know what I was thinking of in terms of the threes collection.

The word "collection" retains its original singularity of description no matter how many items are added or removed. While each thought of a person might be enumerated, they collectively constitute the singular type of thinking processes of an individual, no matter how many variations there are. A person may think differently about the same or several differently labeled ideas or subjects, but all the differences constitute the overall singular process of thinking with respect to an individual. In short, our system of enumeration may be faulty like a person counting the same thing twice because it is labeled differently. Even if you were to think in a million different ways about a trillion different subjects, all of them would collectively represent the single mentality of a given individual.

Whereas we can recognize one view point as one type of thinking and another as a second type, it does not follow that when the two are taken as a whole, that each remains a separate type of thinking and then the whole of the two combined thus constitutes a third type.

One plus one does not equal three.

To think that it does is a proportion enlarged by an ego artificially manufacturing a larger quantity to place itself in a higher position like a particle in an atom moving to a "higher" orbital shell. The recognition that there is an oppositional formula may mean that the two are actually halves of the same one but go unrecognized, perhaps due to a great (geographical/intellectual) polarized distance and that together, they constitute ONE, and not a third.:


...Similar to the dispersal of the human race into different areas of the planet over thousands of years and each becoming altered by the respective terrain they inhabited and adapted to, but are assumed to have the same basic origin; unless we want to suggest that the different races are not off-shoots of the same entity and each has a "separate but equal" origin. Imagine a world in which it was discovered that each race has a separate origin!

If you take half of an apple pie and you add half of a cherry pie, you have not made a third pie, though you might concoct the notion of having created an apple-cherry or cherry-apple pie. Now some might want to argue that if you cross a female horse and a male donkey you get a (sterile) mule, you still have not created a third entity even when you call it by a different name. While I know this sounds counter-intuitive and out of touch with biological reality; like saying a baby created by a man and woman is not a third entity, it is not, WHEN we attempt to "cross-breed" this into the philosophical realm. Unless you want to argue that ideas are organic, despite this is where they originate from, philosophical dichotomies remain static, whereas biological dichotomies are dynamic. Until our brains begin to design dynamic dualities, dynamic dichotomies, they can not be cross-bred. The problem for us is that while the concept of a static and dynamic dichotomy (or Monism or Triism, etc.) is wholly unfamiliar to most, this leads us to a momentary impasse of how to even begin formulating such concepts.

Like our previously mentioned sterile mule, combining the static (still) with a dynamic (moving) concept is not like combing two fruits such as peaches and plums to produce nectarines. Some hybrids need to be intentionally re-planted because they are an artificiality, regardless of how much pleasure we might get out of one such as a flower. Humans have difficulty in distinguishing the static from the dynamic if both appear to be present at the same time... presenting us with a type of "uncertainty principle" related to dichotomization. Such an idea presents us with the notion of philosophical concepts in and of themselves having their own unrecognized physics. I'm not talking about branches of philosophy as separate disciplines, but the basic underlying patterns such as Monism, dualism, Triism, etc., are symbolic representations of an underlying dynamic of physics within the realm of philosophy that is not typically seen because the ideas are separated into specialities of consideration and are not reflected on as a dynamic whole.

Hence, when we isolate a duality from its other "particles", it becomes static and used as if it were a slivered nucleus affixed on a slide to be used as a microscopic specimen of the most prominent consideration to be contemplated. But when we even make an attempt to align it with its fellow principles, like a mouse placed into a snake contained aquarium, our minds are thrown into a turmoil as if having been bombarded with a host of sub-atomic particles which gives rise to multiple reactions. Our thoughts react like a drop of water placed onto a hot spoon. In short, we become scatter-brained, even though it is covered up by very numerous systems of logic, with or without added fencing called mathematics.

NSE (5K)

To use another analogy; let us describe the dichotomy known as polarization with respect to the terms fabled North and South. Without one, the other would not have its separate identity and we humans would have a bit more difficulty in orientation if there was not magnetic north that a compass might point to. Hence, the existence of each are in a symbiotically dependent relationship with the other and therefore constitute what might be described as a divided-from-the-whole singularity. The "whole" is the North - Earth - South arrangement as if it were in an enclosure like a fixed rule-of-thumb, axiom, law, or any other inclusive exclusionary "box" like a math equation that must be performed within a guideline as if it were a syllogism. Combining all or a portion of the two does not create a third entity, regardless of labeling employed to suggest such, since the whole of each represent a singular concept. Those who attempt to suggest the creation of a third entity by a proportioned mixture are engaging in the design of an apparitional metaphysic.

In other words, such a type of thought processing is the exercize of an incremental step in the human brain's evolutionary development. Describing the admixture of a dichotomy as a third entity is a primitive mentality expressing a vague (ghostly) representation of a brain in development that appears to be directed towards a "threes" perspective realization. The "threes" of course, is a symbol, a metaphor, a hint... an obscured shadow dancing on a cave wall contoured by three different sources of illumination such as partial sun and moonlight, a campfire, and a firefly swarm.

But this idea of a dualism representing a singularity has itself been addressed in a dichotomous fashion in terms of contrasting Dualism and Monism, and yet in so doing has resulted in projecting a representation of the emerging "threes" perspective, but there is no EUREKA! realization of its presence. In other words, a one, two, three formula is displayed but it is not recognized as being one of other examples that could be compared if numerous other subjects were collected, collated and then examined with a perspective outside that which initially began the collection with its initial intent to support an old philosophy. Take a look at the following illustration:

Monism, Dualism, Triism (34K)

It's of interest to note that Monism is used to describe a "3rd substance" which is another vague description being used to illustrate an emerging awareness of that which will be more clearly comprehended as the human brain evolves. The interest is that there are numerous instances of a 3 to 1 ratio being expressed such as in Mendelian genetics. See: Biology as Poetry, 3:1 ratio.

With respect to the present context, the silliness of the content on the previous image can be seen when we take the same image and alter the words:

moditri2 (48K)

But please do not misunderstand me. The "silliness" is identified when we look at the information from a "threes" perspective but it is a correct and serious portrayal from a "two" perspective. In other words, if you are on the inside looking out, the perspective is much different than when you are on the outside looking in. The "threes" perspective stands outside a twos perspective. But such differences of perception are not differences of opinion like those of religious beliefs based largely on emotional content. Wherein the "two" perspective is of value in a context where the two is utilized according to a framework initiated and sustained by a two-patterned perspective because it is dominant due to the primary organization of mental concepts used in a given social environment; when the predominant mindset evolves towards developing a social perspective revolving around a usage of a three-pattern, a pattern of two will be less effectual. The transition from a two to a three perspective is made more complicated when those utilizing "two-patterned" perspectives can not recognize an underlying threes orientation emerging right in front of their eyes, and they insist upon calling their usage of a three a pattern-of-two!

Trying to force a two-patterned perspective into a three-patterned formula when the person's mind is not ready for it, is very much like trying to teach a child how to play catch when their hand to eye coordination needs to develop accordingly to the task(s) set in front of it. If the social tasks involve the learning of skills making stone tools for basic survival skills within a social group whose primary orientation is towards hunting, then trying to teach them how to plant three different crops is indeed a waste of time. One is better off teaching a "threes" perspective in the context for which the dominant perspective is oriented. Attempting to teach a "threes" perspective in different subject areas requires a menagerie of thinking skills. And even then, the "students" may only be receptive to bits and pieces of information on an individual or collective basis. Trying to teach so-called experts can be even more trying because their answers and questions are very often linked with resistance to acquire a different way of thinking.

In order to understand the present New Instrument of Threes, an examination of past and present uses of past ideas needs to unravel the though processing ball of twine being incorporated by those whose minds are evolving towards a three, but have no representative "three" model to which they might attach the emerging allusions, whereby old ideas become entangled with vaguely defined three-patterned images that come to be called a third entity, identity, idea, form, function, etc..., but while the emerging notion of a "three" is an actual separate entity, it is not so when it appears in the context of an old idea such as a dichotomy.

(static) Rutherford model of the atom (23K)

For example, just because different particles such as the electron, neutron and proton have differently identified charge values (plus, minus, neutral), does not in itself constitute the realization of three different and separate entities which are thus emphacized (named) by the usage of different labels. (The Proton is said to have a positive charge equal to the negative charge of an electron.) The realization of separate (static) identities is established on other grounds of independent (in-concert) functionality such as, for example, "orbital" shell placement for the electron, the exclusion principle of not being able to share the same place at the same time, and other "individualisms" of attendant property; though each of the particles are collectively said to constitute what might be described as the "personality" of a singular atom (identity). Identities for which are provided the labels of Stable, Unstable, and Highly Unstable. Physics thus incorporates a philosophy of psychology.

But the foregoing is not to be construed as presenting atomic "behavior" as a microcosm of a larger macrocosm such as human society on the whole or some aspect thereof such as a country, state, city, neighborhood or family unit. Unless we can presume that there is an increase in atomic nuclei as part of some unknown pro-creative process underway; then extending too much of an analogous side-by-side schematic between human social behavior and that on the atomic level is over-reaching with a simplistic model. An increased presence of atomic nuclei in a given area is not the same as a "baby boom" created by a large mass of returning soldiers. Unless atomic nuclei periodically "go off to war" or some other representative gathering from time to time, though this "time" interval may not be relevant to a species' life time, in that it might well be difficult to measure.

The atom is not (at the least) a "conventional" atom if two of the three, or even one of the three large sub-atomic particles is absent... unless we want to metaphysically argue for the existence of a non-atomic state of existence or the existence of an existence within an existence which requires different organizational properties that may or may not mirror those which we identify on a larger level such as these large basic particles containing the proposed 3 quarks and 3 anti-quarks, etc.

Atom image source: Wiki: Chemistry

Dynamic atom (4K)

If we attempt to apply the basic atomic particle pattern to the human sphere, we would have to identify (dynamic) positive, negative and neutral "charges". For instance, if a man and woman are denoted with negative and positive charges, than a "neutral" charge, in terms of sexuality in the procreative positive sense, might be inferred by some to be homosexuality; even though the preoccupation of their perspective is based on what some have described as controverted or in(tro)verted sexuality, and thus perhaps provides pseudo-realistic proof to some of them for permitting, promoting and encouraging the existence thereof. While this analogy is extremely simplistic, and the actual "charges" having nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality (at least that we humorously know of), or even humans, since the concepts of life and death may be more suitable references; with the "neutron" being expressed by the notion of a type of "un"-existence (where the usage of "non" is deterministically used to convey a positive or negative notion and thus is not used since life and death can be used to portray positive and negative allusions).

Initial Posting Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland