Threesology Research Journal: The Scientification of Philosophy by way of a Threes Model
Scientification of Philosophy
(A Study of the Threes Phenomena)



Book of Three logo for Mickael Eck's site of threes ideas

Flag Counter
Progressive Thinkers as of 1/4/2023


Language Narrative Series
~~~ Aesop's Fables ~~~
Preface 1 Preface 2 Preface 3
Prologue 1 Prologue 2 Prologue 3
Mesologue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 32 33      
Standard Cognitive Model series:
Page (#37) is most recent:
37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30
29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14
13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2
Old numbering system (Hence, oldest writings)
1b 1c 1d 1e

Let me begin by providing you with a few examples of the "threes" phenomena being associated with Natural events:


Examples of patterns-of-three in Nature

Philosophers throughout the ages, from different subject areas, have created three-patterned idea distinctions. The following list is but a small sampling. However, by being placed into a single representation instead of expecting you to take a survey of multiple subjects, you will be enabled to more readily appreciate how frequent such a thinking pattern actually is. Many readers and writers resort to using some pattern-of-three but have not taken the time to reflect upon how many different people in their own contexts actually do use this model of thinking. The following list barely scratches the surface:


3 patterned philosophical distinctions

It is rather curious that many readers are well aware of the Rosetta stone with its 3 languages, but that the presence of two more examples is not well known:



Three examples of 3-languages inscriptions

And just for the moment, let me add a few threes-related examples from different perspectives of language. While some readers may have seen a few of them before, they did not make an active mental note of them into a singular compilation. If they had done so, and had done so for other subjects, then the recurring usage of a "three-patterned" cognitive theme might stick out in their consciousness. While I had previously provided a larger image, adding more examples made the file a bit unwieldy so I placed it into a pdf: Language Items list


Handful of threes-related examples from language and writing references

The chart to the right serves as a link (if your click on it) to the site I culled the Dr. McNulty's "threes in anatomy" from in order to compile the chart. For those wanting the chart, I provide this link to the Anatomy_chart.pdf

This image is a link to a pdf containing this anatomy chart

Yes, I realize that someone can do the same for other patterns, yet, why don't they? And after you've done so, will you realize that it is only a few patterns that are being used over- and over- and over- again, to the point you realize that the idea of a "Conservation of Number" related to survival appears to be a standard based on a requirement imposed upon biology by an incrementally deteriorating planet? Will you be able to recognize the Conservation of Number in genetics and particle physics, and yet particle physicists have not adopted the view of such to the extent it is included as a Conservation Law, even though multiple equations express this? (The Earth, the Solar System, The Galaxy all have shelf lives, and as they deteriorate... biology and ideology follow this course... whereby all ideas can be viewed as rationalizations.)

There appears to be an underlying code to cognitive activity requiring the establishment of a "cognitive calculus," (a calculus specifically tailored for this subject), which was an idea hinted at by the previous series on the perspective of a "standard cognitive model". The "1- 2- Many" theme I've been currently addressing is just a tool in my effort to establish a means by which all cognitive activity may be catalogued, its derivations analyzed, and the establishment of its origination (past), its present status, as well as what this may entail for the future of its applicability to different tasks/subjects. While there are multiple kinds and types of hierarchical models employed for a variety of subjects (for example, the Binomial Nomenclature for biological classification, Rank and File system in the Military, monetary denominations, Social stratification systems, etc...), we don't actually have one which satisfactorily provides a holistic grasp of cognition.

We currently have separate, piece-meal varieties which may be used by one or another practitioner in a given profession who might want to claim otherwise. Others simply say the mind of humans is too complex... or at least they want to believe it is, and do not want to think that it may be understood as one might take apart a watch. However, if the language expressions and symbols we are using are creating a severe limiting factor in humanity achieving "that which lays at the territorial limits of present human cognitive efforts", then such a calculus as I am thinking of may be able to deduce this more accurately (with proof) than any present formula using a "philosophy of science" or "philosophy of religion" or "philosophy of higher consciousness" or current strings of "mathematical philosophies" which one may want to apply as part of their presumptuous "thought experimenting logic" (logic by way of conjuring up a thought experiment). Yet, will such a calculus enable us to created a better language to be used by cognitive activity? Or should we simply be like so many others who want to think that such a language already exists in their respective area of interest? Let us wait and see what we can come up with. Won't "they" be surprised.

A few readers may have come across the old adage about a person "Not able to see the forest for the trees," in one sense meaning they overlook the obvious. However, in my research into the "threes" phenomena, the adage becomes useful if transformed into "Unable to see the Threes because of the Four-est." In other words, the rather obvious recurrences of patterns-of-three are not seen because of some other pattern a person may be inclined towards.

In fact, as an example, back in 1955-56 there was a researcher with the name of George A. Miller who taught at 1) Harvard, 2) Rockefeller, and 3) Princeton universities and was known for his research into cognition, communication and psycho-linguistics; who has acquired a place in history for a commonly read and cited paper he wrote entitled "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two; Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information".

I saw the title and came to the realization that it was a basic arithmetic formula which yielded the three-patterned ensemble of "5- 7- 9", but he overlooked this pattern because the number seven kept cropping up during his time, place (era), and no doubt the attitude about enumeration which was part of his profession in an academic culture (and remains today as part of an overlooked repeating tradition). The following are the opening remarks of his paper which I think are instructive in acknowledging how either the intentional usage of a number(s) can be useful as a tool for research, or has some unintended influence on one's thinking while doing a given research project. It is of further interest to note he and I share the same research orientation, albeit from different vantage points:

My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals. This number assumes a variety of disguises, being sometimes a little larger and sometimes a little smaller than usual, but never changing so much as to be unrecognizable. The persistence with which this number plagues me is far more than a random accident. There is, to quote a famous senator, a design behind it, some pattern governing its appearances. Either there really is something unusual about the number or else I am suffering from delusions of persecution.

It is too bad that among very many professionals that a negative attitude is effected upon viewing the repetition of a pattern (particularly a number pattern), because of a history in which some pattern... in this case numbers, have been used as tools by practitioners in activities where the terms irrational and illogical come into play as definitive labels by outside observers; who do not take into consideration that if there is a basic underlying cognitive pattern, there is no reason for it not to show up in a numerical form or formula as an expressed logic or illogicality, as being rational or irrational, and either used in a serious or comical instances... depending on a person's inclination due to experiences, education, health, and social context. The first negative thought which comes to mind by an observer is the singular word "Numerology," and the second thought is the two-word ensemble of "obsessive-compulsive," followed by multiple other pejoratives. (In other words, we can see a "1- 2- Many" recurring cognitive pattern that is being overlooked.)

For example, there is no reason that a universal impression formed on the human psyche should not be expressed in the context that a given individual lives. If an African pygmy has the image of a triangle on their mind, there is no reason for it not to show up in the design of a spear or arrowhead. Nor is it illogical for someone to create a triangular-shaped hat, pyramid, tepee, or triangle-shaped ball or pin rack to be used in pool or bowling, much less find it in some termite mounds, or flight formation of migrating birds, or the shape of aircraft or instead of being called a triangle it is called a V-shaped engine block, or tornado, or whirlpool or expressed as a linear formula in mathematics.

Likewise, a recurring impression of a given number may be more effectively expressed by one person than another because they are not afraid of seeing the impression nor fall into the trap of letting others negatively define their behavior for doing so. Just because a person has a non-common affinity for a given pattern does not mean they are to be viewed as non-normal in a negative psychiatric sense. They may simply be more sensitive to subtleties that most people overlook but nonetheless use themselves in varying ways and at varying times, yet are appreciably oblivious to their repetitive usage thereof. Just because we have an entire academic and research effort by thousands of professionals who do not collectively see an obvious pattern, doesn't mean it is non-existent or unimportant. We need only look through history to make note of how many times Academically trained professionals have made mistakes and been dead wrong, including those so-called professionals in Military strategy, Legislative politics, commerce, religion, sports, theater, gambling, stock market speculation, etc...

I am certain that others in and out of research have had some encounter with some recurring visual (etc...) pattern just as there are those who on occasion have a song or piece of music repeat over an over again to the point of driving some people crazy and seek out some means of quieting the repetition which intrudes on their otherwise directed interests.

In Miller's case, he overlooked the very clue he was searching for in his research, though in his above commentary it can be seen... that is if you know what you are looking for. When he describes his experience with the number 7 as "being sometimes a little larger and sometimes a little smaller than usual," he is speaking of a pattern-of-three, or a more definitively expressed wide-spread cognitive "1- 2- Many" profile model of which I discuss a bit more about in the Language Narrative series.

It is unfortunate that the thousands who have come across his paper are unduly focused on the number 7 and don't read between the lines, so to speak, with respect to identifying the underlying "psycho-linguistic" repetition of "threes", that are so routine and obvious that most people overlook them; such as the recurring usage of a period- question mark- exclamation point by some authors, and not to mention the holding of a pen or pencil with three fingers, besides being on the 3rd planet from a Sun and having developed from a triplet (DNA) code by way of three Germ layers which develop a brain that is used by some people to pursue the hierarchy of receiving the three University degrees of a Bachelor's, Master's, PhD; unless you're like me having flunked kindergarten because you insisted on bringing three items for 'show and tell' instead of just 1 or 2 and if asked by a nosey adult "do you have to do 1 or 2?" (as in peeing or pooping) when you raise your hand to ask permission to go to the restroom, you say you have to do number 3, because that is the combination of the two. As far as I'm concerned, I flunked kindergarten and remain in a playful sandbox (playground) called number 3. However, I charge 3 pennies for admission and you must learn the secret 3-patterned password.

One of the books Miler wrote with others is representative of his search for some fundamental pattern: In Plans and the Structure of Behavior (with Eugene Galanter and Karl Pribram, 1960), Miller examined how knowledge is accumulated and organized into a practical "image" or plan. Yet Miller didn't realize he was actually expressing a usage of a basic cognitive plan that appears to be impressed upon the human psyche by way of physiology and an imposition placed on the species by an incremental deterioration. I call it a Standard Cognitive Formula that multiple others have been searching for, but I was not, I just happened to stumble upon it in my "threes" research interest. It was something I uncovered while rummaging around different subjects.

Primarily, this site is about the recurrence of patterns-of-three which occur in multiple subjects, and the application of an intended perspective that one can define as a Philosophy. However, the recurrence of such a pattern and the topic of philosophy requires an expansion of the present notions of how Philosophy plays a role in the detection, analysis and articulation of what is being found. Hence, I see the need for indulging in the topic of devising a "Science of Philosophy" entitled the "Scientification of Philosophy," as opposed to the current flip-flopping of this into one type of rationalization or another which contours the discussion into some formula represented by the notion "Philosophy of Science". However, the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

In researching the topic of "Threes" as a phenomena of recurrence, let me note that yes, I fully recognize the presence of other recurring patterns, both with and without enumeration. However, for the most part, my interest is in the usage of numbers by which to identify patterns in whatever subject I am interested in at a given time, for the purpose of establishing what appears to be the expression of a standard in how the human mind operates, and is not as unlimited as some have supposed, nor protected from being seen, since in so doing, man is no longer able to be seen in the image of god, unless one wants to describe such a god as a repetition influenced by a Nature that is incrementally deteriorating. And yes, this view represents a philosophy but I recognize the need for establishing a "Science of Philosophy" (as opposed to the typically assigned "Philosophy of science"), which permits a researcher to be able to gain some objectivity from the typical manner in which a subject is analyzed.

While numbers are not used, typically because so many have accused users thereof for engaging in what is called Numerology, one needs to know what numerology is in the traditional sense, and that if we are being honest, all of Mathematics is an engaged activity of Numerology, despite its attached interpretations for supply a rigor of logic and in many cases an attendant practical application in many diverse efforts. Unfortunately, some Mathematicians treat their profession as if it were a religion and seeks to honor itself by claiming a sole proprietorship for defining what is and what is not to be viewed as a logical exercise of enumeration. Religion tries to do this with the ideas of Morality, good, evil god and anything else theologians want to claim as their divine right to sit in judgment over. Nonetheless, my so-called Numerology has begun to pose a real and larger threat to the standards by which multiple orientations have long been complacent about.

In my pursuit of what I am calling a "Science of Philosophy" involving what may be described as a "Standard Cognitive Model" the recognition of repeating patterns has detailed some of the following repetitions in an effort to distinguish fact from fiction, the objective from subjective, and nature from nurture:


  • Numbers can be used as symbols referencing ideas which can be reduced to enumeration as a means of itemization.
  • Numbers need not be indoctrinated nor inculcated with attendant personalizations akin to some enculturation for ulterior motives involving the exploitation of others.
  • Small numbers are most frequently occurring in all subjects, even though a particular author may not specifically engage in the use thereof.
  • Some (small) numbers appear more frequently than other (small) numbers.
  • The assortment of small numbers being repeated such the presence of a "Conservation of Number".
  • There are large number repetitions but they appear to be contextually applied and not found in multiple subjects.
  • Examples of patterns are more easily seen when in close proximity, though in some cases some are recognized as a group occurring over a short period of time.
  • Long periods of time being used in the construction of an example are often referred to as coincidence or meaningless by many observers.
  • Examples may appear as ensembles of a given pattern being sought, but the symbols or language being used appears to be provisionally unrelated.
  • Whereas models of ideology have already been established, old ideas can be revisioned (revised) while new ones established to provide a better leverage of identification and analysis.

Here are some basic models being used in different contexts, some being afforded with lesser and others with greater flexibility of application:

  • Monad, Singularity, Primary, Oneness, Theory of Everything, Grand Unified Theory, etc...
  • Dyad, Duality, Secondary, Pairing, Binary, Yin/Yang, etc...
  • Triad, Trinity, Tertiary, Triangulation, Triplet code, etc...
  • Multiplicity: (Sometimes 2 or more but most often 3 or more) Plurality, Polygon, etc...

While the foregoing have been used to establish the fledgling essence of a Scientific Philosophy, they often fall victim to being altered to portray the contextual expressions of the subject they are being applied to. They don't collectively stand their ground, though their appearance in the above list may suggest otherwise to some readers. They become mangled, disjointed and otherwise subjected to an irreverent form of being named by those who are claiming ownership of in one subject or another, much as an indentured servant, slave or infant is named. Yes, far too many want to take advantage of Philosophies budding innocence to begin standing on its own two feet after crawling along for so many centuries in and out of the different doorways that multiple subjects have held their door open to because philosophy can provide the vibrancy of a new life to musty shelves and dimly lit corridors and crevices of so many antiquated ideological corners the human mind finds itself huddled in. Yet, if not the foregoing is akin to a child's first words, what then is the useful speech pattern by which to express its own formative personality, its own physical stature, and exert what can only be described as the leader it was meant to be... arriving as it were from the ranks of the most humblest beginnings?

Indeed, let its first three words be: "1- 2- Many" as a precursor of a greater language yet to come.

Every single idea, every belief, every notion, every nuanced supposition, reverent or irreverent (with or with accompanying behavior) that is being used for a moment, for awhile, for a lifetime... is a whole, partial, or fragment of a philosophy, whether you label it a philosophy or not, and whether you agree with an idea or not. Even a grocery list can be viewed as part of a person's characteristic day -to- day philosophy that may not reach some conclusion until one goes shopping, and is subject to revision depending on a particular item's availability or price. So are chores, whether you commit them to a listed serialization (as you do a grocery or "things-to-do") list or not. Every routine, every habit, every digression can be viewed as a philosophy, whether or not the word is a customary word being used in your social vernacular or not. Whether you think it expresses a person's haughtiness or level of education or even some pretence to intellectual sophistication, the fact remains your ideas, with words or numbers or some other symbols and sounds, can all be labeled a philosophy, whether a person reserves the word for some special intellectual attribute or not.

My many decades of research into the "threes" phenomena (ideas and activities occurring in groups -of- three), has led me to the point of deducing a few recurrences with respect to patterns which repeat themselves in certain contexts. While I have an interest in the "three" (such as we find in Fairy tales, Mythology, Religion, Science, writing, etc...); I also pay witness to its absence and the presence of some other pattern, be it a number or otherwise. And though there are larger numbers than the first nine or so (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...), such as 12 for the twelve months of the year and 365 for the days in a year, or even the concept of infinity, I do not find large numbers being repeated in multiple subjects. They are contextually isolated events. Apparently Nature likes the Number three, but this may on occasion occur in an ensemble form such as the 2 strands of DNA along with a 3 (triplet) code and 4 bases (which we can view as 3 to 1 organization). Hence, we see a 2- 3- 4 pattern-of-three.

I have also come across the recurring three-patterned ensemble of "1- 2- Many" which has been extremely useful in deciphering underlying patterns found in Religion and philosophy, but I have begun extending it into other realms of exploration as well. When applying the ensemble as a tool of dissection in philosophy, it occurred to me that philosophy is not an established science in its own right. It is used as a domestic helper, if not an indentured servant to all other subjects who use their respective symbols and language for whatever purposes a given researcher thinks is best. In many cases, philosophy is treated like a slave that has never enjoyed a true freedom. While there are those who may be quick to argue that it is philosophy which is queen to all subjects, and they would likewise be quick to flip-flop the heading of this page into the common theme "Philosophy of Science", the two are appreciably different. While the "Philosophication of Science" has already been put to use for several centuries, there is no representative idea involving the "Scientification of Philosophy". Philosophy is not understood from this vantage point. It is a strange vernacular to speak in terms of a "Scientific Philosophy" when so many interpret philosophy in relative "generically specific" terms applied to one context or another, but never the whole enterprise of philosophizing. Yet, I have not interest at the moment in quibbling over semantics. I want to introduce you to a person given the name Laozi. He said one thing that I find of especial interest for the present context:


Laozi:

  • Dao produces one.
  • One produces two.
  • Two produces three.
  • Three produces the ten thousand things.

(In classical Chinese, the "ten thousand things" means "everything." Commentators have long disagreed over what the "one, two, and three" refers to, usually plugging in their favorite cosmological, cosmogonic, or metaphysical model.) Laozi further writes: Something amorphous & consummate existed before Heaven & Earth. Solitude! Vast! Standing alone, unaltering. Going everywhere, yet unthreatened. It can be considered the Mother of the World. I don't know its name, so I designate it "Dao." Compelled to consider it, name it "Great." (Dao is considered indistinct & undefinable.

I am not talking about "Dao" with respect to emphasizing it as the point I want to bring up. I had recorded the above commentary several decades ago and placed it as one of the "threes" examples on an old poster I had printed up: BTR poster column 5. On December 31st (2022) the following image came to mind, and I realized it to be an updated version of Laozi's idea, suggesting he was on a path to develop a "Scientific Philosophy" as it was possible to do so within the limits of his era and frame of mind where such a concept may not have even existed:


  1. 0 is not a number, not a quantity, it is a place-holder.
  2. 1 is a number, is a quantity, but is too cumbersome for multiplicity.
  3. 2 is a number, is a quantity, but yields only the even.
  4. 3 is a number, is a quantity, and gives us both multiplicity of the even and odd.
  5. Hence, 3 can alternatively be assigned the labels of Multiplicity, of Plurality, of the Many.

Again, I am not emphasizing "Dao" or any Eastern Philosophy or Religion, though all of them apparently have had thinkers who brushed the against what can be described as a "forbidden" territory of creating a Science of Philosophy, because this would bring into question their adopted belief systems. As far as I'm concerned there is no Western Religion or Eastern Philosophy which can rightly be interpreted as THE way, not to mention I'm not particularly religions, though I did have someone call me a life savior once for changing their tire and another person call me a saint and scholar because I leant them some money.


Dao: Chinese "way," "road," "path," "course," "speech," or "method" (Wade-Giles romanization: Tao).

The word for this concept, dao, indicates a "way" in the sense of a road or a path. Owing to the contextual nature of Chinese languages and depending upon its use in a sentence, dao can function as a noun or a verb. It may indicate the road upon which one travels, the act of wayfaring or traveling down a road, or even the act of way-making by leading someone down or constructing a road. It may also refer to speech, especially in philosophical or moral education.

In the latter sense, dao may refer to a philosophical tradition: a thinker's disciples maintain his dao, which they subsequently transmit (in both speech and writing) to their own students, and so forth. For example, Confucius (551–479 BCE) believed that he was restoring the dao of the ancient sage-kings. Mencius (flourished 4th century BCE) was subsequently considered the orthodox interpreter of Confucius's dao. The great 12th-century-CE thinker Zhu Xi believed that he was resurrecting daotong, the transmission of the Confucian Way, which he claimed had been lost in the previous few centuries. Likewise, the tradition that subsequently became known as Daoism (daojia) traced itself back to thinkers such as Laozi (assumed, if he existed, to have been a contemporary of Confucius) and the 4th-century-BCE sage Zhuang Zhou, or Zhuangzi ("Master Zhuang"). Those thinkers and their disciples promoted the Cosmic Dao, which they claimed was a greater guide to life and good government than any human teaching. ("dao." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)


I placed the above on Page 6 of the Language Narrative series. I do not know where it came from. It just suddenly appeared and I jotted it down. It clearly is an extension, is a 2500 year update to Laozi's idea, and removes it from a specificity for the idea of "Dao" and places itself in the position of being a "stand alone" philosophy. Laozi was on the trail of an idea that could later be used as a code for taking computers into the next generation beyond the binary, as well as understand the recurring triplet code of DNA and why the "three" is such a recurring theme in particle physics. When Chinese thinkers get a hold of this, they will be able to leap ahead of the conventions of thought being used by Western Philosophy. The recurring triplet code in DNA and the recurring "threes" theme in particle physics, are expressions of what I refer to as a "Conservation of Number" that is caused an incremental deterioration impacting life forms to adopt a form of adaptation in concert with a reduction in resources, which influences the construction of ideological rationalizations, clearly being represented by the currency of present day religious and philosophical orientations. However, let us not overlook that the recurring themes of repetition may be an exercise representing some unacknowledged "survival mode" taking place. I say survival mode, particularly in the case of DNA's triplet code because you would think after several billion years it would have advanced... would have evolved to some larger patterned number, unless it is being forced (let us say reinforced) to submit itself to a currency of repetition conducive to conditions which are repeating themselves but give us not guarantee that they won't or couldn't be abruptly altered. In other words, why isn't DNA evolving if it too is part of Evolution? Why this... (if I may take a word from psychology)... why this model of sanity when mutation suggests that insanity is an attribute as well, at least in a primitive interpretation thereof? (In other words, is mutation an expression of insanity, or is it a frantic means of seeking a greater sanity than that being practiced by the current social environment of cellular activity?)

Western Philosophy will not survive the onslaught of Eastern thinkers using a three-patterned "1- 2- Many" tool of investigation and dissection. They will quickly grasp the cyclicity and not be tethered by the Western traditions of mechanistic thinking which creates a complacency in its presumed position of ascendancy backed by an arrogant Mathematics that can not recognize it is a mirror-imaged Westernized version of the old Yin/yang tradition tied to a complementary dualism. Like the fluidic expression of calligraphy, Eastern philosophy is enabled to more easily adopt more complex variations of basic themes. Laozi's idea is a simplified version of that shown up, representing a tradition of cognitive orientation that is foreign to Western minds. Metaphorically, while the Western mind is busy collecting fireflies in a jar, the Eastern mind adopts the behavior into a philosophy summed up by the notion that all of us are at one time or another engaged in chasing fireflies. There is a distinctly important difference in the two forms of conceptualization. Eastern thinkers will be more adept to quickly assimilate the updated revision of Laozi's idea and place it into multiple contexts. In effect, they will beat Western thinkers in creating the conditions for a "Scientification of Philosophy".


Lao_Tzu image 1

Laozi image 2

Different words and symbols are used when a person describes their version of a "1- 2- Many" model of thinking. Let me provide one such model in an image previously used in describing a standard cognitive model which details some synonyms that might be used in different contexts:


One, Two, Many cognitive model example

What is not explicitly shown is the evident cyclicity of the pattern being used by humanity and Nature. Apparently, the "many" position is reached and some foreknowledge of a coming change, a "New Age" or New Consciousness in the development is a characteristically recurring theme in the topic of "millennialism", or thousand year period. This coincides with the change in thought processing involving place value notation in arithmetic which is accomplished by using a comma between the hundredths and thousandths positions. After the value of 999, we use a comma to make a change to thousands. The place value system of notation is a symbolic way of expressing an underlying cognitive theme that philosophy has labeled as millennialism, but no one has made the connection between the two as being representative of an underlying cognitive activity involving a transitional state or stage of development that can occur backwards, downwards, sideways, diagonally and not upwards or forwards.

Let me provide an example of how using the "1- 2- Many" model an help elucidate a larger pattern of overall activity taking place with humanity. While it is understood that past cultures engaged in Nature worship with or without some fertility cult taking the place of some later organized religious orientation, the Nature or animal worship populations held a multiplicity of perceptions as an expression of what later became termed to be spirits or gods. In other words, there were a multiplicity or would-be pantheon of items that were used as points of reverence, good or bad/evil. As the mind/brain of humanity began to evolve into what may be described as an "enlightened" or advanced consciousness, we can pay witness to the development of "Oneness" in the idea of there being only one god. Hence, the human mind was expressing a trend from the Many (polytheism) to the One (Monotheism). And yet, there arose Three great Monotheisms noted as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, all of which arose in desert climates and may thus suggest that if the developmental trend of humanity occurred in a jungle, sea fairing or wooded environment, the theologies may never have developed, at least not in the way they are. However, the point is that the human mind went from a "Many" theme to a "One" theme. The trouble is, that if we take into account the Many types of Religions and Philosophies in the world, the time is ripe for a new "oneness" of conceptualization to arise.

In several accounts of history we find that the inception of anew belief arose by way of one or more founders who did not like or accept the prevailing many different views being espoused in their era. In other words, they took in Many different views and created a single view, that may or may not have turned into a major theme, such as the case in which Joseph Smith came to developed the Latter Day saints notion. Yet, he is but one of several whose singular response came as a result of amalgamating many views it a particular era. With the point being is that there is a cyclicity of the "One/Many" theme take in place such as is also described by the "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) slogan on the U.S. Presidential seal, suggesting that the U.S. government is tied to the very same kind of One/Many theme which gave rise to Judaism. Hence, the U.S. government appears to have more in common with Judaism then it does with Christianity, which is extremely problematic for some.


E Pluribus Unum is a One/Many reference

Another example is the development of the U.S. Army which combined several independent groups into a singular unit. Hence, a many-into-one representation, that often creates singular independently acting groups that may or may not be given an especial public designation, though some secret labeling typically is used as a means of referencing those in the group.

The American military system developed from a combination of the professional, national Continental Army, the state militias and volunteer regiments of the American Revolutionary War, and the similar post-Revolutionary War American military units under the Militia Act of 1792. These provided a basis for the United States Army's organization, with only minor changes, until the creation of the modern National Guard in 1903. The Militia Act provided for the use of volunteers who could be used anywhere in time of war, in addition to the State militias who were restricted to local use within their States for short periods of time. Even today's professional United States Army, which is augmented by the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, has a similar system of organization: a permanent, professional core, and additional units which can be mobilized in emergencies or times of war. (Regular Army (United States))



Let me end this page with a digression involving a comment about the idea that humans are enabled to reach what has been described as a "higher consciousness", typically by way of doing or saying something in a repetitive way:

The frequent usage of three-lettered or 3-sounds or 3-part utterances used for meditation can be seen as hearkening-back to the babbling stage of infancy out of which the infant acquires what can be described as an "ascendancy" to a higher state of consciousness/being called a walking, talking, self-toileting child. Whereas many a parent speaks of an infant's 1st word and then the child's 1st step, it is not typical to think of consciousness as a multi-generational event that can be accurately measured by some definitive behavior to be checked off of a "developmental milestone" list of accomplishments.

One must wonder if this period in infancy leaves an indelible mark on the human psyche whereby adults in different contexts and with different languages or symbology, engage in some representative type of "babbling" (repetition) of vocalization (speech or other forms of expression) which in several cases propels them to a higher state of being such as in the case of achieving some social status of recognition out of which they reach some socially constructed (makeshift, make-do, alternative/alternate) "heaven on earth" like that which living in a Mansion or working in Congress, or teaching at a University, or getting a job or getting married, or having a baby, getting a divorce, etc., might well be felt has a higher ascendancy of one's former self-affirming idealization. (The "self" of a child is frequently established by recognizing one's name or one's gender, race, religion, etc...)

In accounting for the wide-spread usage of Mediative chants, songs, and other behavior, some of which use a distinct pattern-of-three such as in the case of "Om" (A-U-M) let us make note of the following:

The fact that infants do engage in a "developmental mile-stone stage" of repetitive (utterance) babbling that is followed by an ascendancy into a higher consciousness by way of a natural maturational growth process, may in fact leave an indelible mark on the developing (and impressionable/vulnerable) human mind which glimpses its origination as one in which it is surrounded by a "cloud or shroud" and retains the image as an 'echo', as a shadow, as an indistinct hint, as a presence, as a phenomena, as clue which is highly suggestive to a curious mind and that acts like a reverberation of (consistent or intermittent) concentric (uni-centric? bi-centric? tri-centric?) waves (undulations) which is sought after in adult life in multiple formulas; one of which is the tendency of some to advance a view involving the notion of "vibrations" or "subtle energies" or simply described as being "something there"... at the territorial tip of one's consciousness domain which they are compelled to seek out.

In addition, this transitional activity of moving into a different "plane" of consciousness after infancy was preceded by the long-held view by some that birth itself was a process of acquiring a higher consciousness by way of a tunnel with a light at the end of it; suggestive of the birth canal and the presumed birth trauma where the body must quickly adapt itself to life outside the womb; which one can easily view as an analogy to the concept of acquiring a higher consciousness from a fluid to a gaseous (oxygen) state of existence which used multiple kinds of non-biological substances for the developmental processes. Hence, these two episodes constitute a "1st- and 2nd- staging event" and the search for a 3rd in waking life makes up the trio that apparently pervades so many inclinations, aspirations and sought-for accomplishments.

Hence, the three:

  1. Singular (but repetitive) vocalization (wailing/breath-gasping) event of the birthing cry.
  2. Dual repetitive (consonant/vowel) utterances of infant babbling.
  3. Triple-patterned repetitive vocalizations used as meditative chants.... seeking transcendence.

Rference to 3-patterned meditation chant as infant babbling

Date of Origination: Wednesday, 4th January 2023... 4:36 AM
Date of Initial posting: Wednesday, 4th January 2023... 11:45 AM
Update: Wednesday, 25th January 2023... 8:05 PM