Page B
(Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org
Researchers as of 11/20/2019
| 3-to-1 A | 3-to-1 B | 3-to-1 C | 3-to-1 D | 3-to-1 E | 3-to-1 F |
| 3-to-1 G | 3-to-1 H | 3-to-1 I | 3-to-1 J | 3-to-1 K | 3-to-1 L |
| 3-to-1 M | 3-to-1 N | 3-to-1 O | 3-to-1 P | 3-to-1 Q | 3-to-1 FF |
| The hagfish has one main three-chambered systematic heart and three accessory pumps: (The vertebrate heart: an evolutionary perspective by Andrea Stephenson, Justin W. Adams, and Mauro Vaccarezza. (Another account says there are five hearts: The hagfish, Myxine glutnosa, has five hearts. There is a three-chambered systemic heart, two accessory, one portal, and one caudal heart. The hagfish spends long periods of quiescence interspersed with short episodes of frenzied feeding. by Daniel SJ Choy and Richard Ellis.) Multiple hearts in animals other than Wikipedia: Barosaurus./td> |
Here are some other heart quantities, but those reading this must take into consideration how and why such quantities are being referenced. In some cases the heart structures can actually represent other quantities than what a particular researcher is claiming: (Animals with more than one heart: Animals with multiple hearts)
- Octopuses and squid have three hearts.
- Earthworms have five hearts.
- Cuttlefish: 3 hearts
- Hagfish: 4 hearts
- Coastal squid: 3 hearts (Squids have three hearts; one main heart and two branchial hearts.)
- Cockroaches: 13 hearts
- Trout: 2 hearts
- Barosaurus (Dinosaur): possibly 8
- Horse: approx. 5
I will assume the reader is already aware of the panoply, pervasiveness, and proclivity of "Threes" occurring in various human spheres. Otherwise, continual referrals with accompanying lists will make discussions extremely cumbersome and distracting. However, this does not in any way imply you are aware of every single occurring instance or manner of a "three" appearance. Such words as three, triad, trinity, treble, triunity, etc., are nothing more than tools. They are digging tools, examining tools, tools to eat with, climb with, dissect with, write with, walk with, dream with, etc... Together they are a collection of tools found in a mechanic's, machinist's fisherman's, painter's, sculpturer's or sewer's tool kit. At times such tool boxes contain a variety of thingmajigs, whatchamacallits, and dohickeys like a junk drawer housed in many kitchens. 3 to 1 ratios are part of the collection. Whereas some researchers prefer a multitude of "exact fit" wrenches, sometimes it is far more preferable to have a crescent wrench, commonly referred to as a monkey wrench (in the U.S.), though some may be thinking in terms of a "spanner" or pipe wrench.
All patterns-of-three can (loosely) be interpreted as a 3 in/as 1 ratio, or a 1 from 3 ratio. Take for example a flag with 3 colors on it to signify a given country. From one perspective the 3 colors in a particular arrangement (with or without any other markings/symbols), represent the flag of a specific country. Hence, the 3 represent the 1 flag. If you remove the colors (and other symbols), it is just a piece of cloth that may, in certain circumstances, represent a momentary truce. In many four-item situations, there exists some criteria that may be used to distinguish 3 from 1. In some instances, it may be nothing more than a word, space, silence, symbol, sound or even nuance which separates 3 from 1. Words themselves are sometimes better understood as being little more than a type of "Morse code" of cognitive activity, with the underlying code translation best understood as a primitive's usage of notches or pebble piling. Sometimes, a pattern-of-three in one language remains an easily identifiable pattern-of-three in another language whether the words/symbols are understood or not.
Some examples of "threes" are being misunderstood. For example, In a short discussion with three individuals who were trying to impress upon me their religious orientation, they understood the word "Trinity" only in a religious context. And then when I tried to explain it as a 3-to-1 ratio, they had difficulty in seeing anything beyond the limitations imposed (and expected) by their previous religion-focused social encounters. From their perspective, the word "Trinity" was something that had always existed. Trying to explain that it has an origin and its usage is frequently applied to past (ancient) views that we of the present define as religion, was a topic of conversation way outside the confines of their usual intellectual expectation. They were stupefied by the usage of information they had no ready-made counter argument for in which to re-direct the conversation to be used as supportive "evidence" that they were correct in their assumptions of biblical "studies" (superficial reading of select biblical passages). (Note: not everyone I have spoken with has difficulty understanding the "three persons" [Father-Son-Holy Spirit] in 1 god concept, but they are when one reflects on the idea that the "Father" named in the line-up may thus be interpreted to be different from God, because it is rather ignorant for someone to say that the "Father" refers to god and is therefore also in themselves. In a way, this is like saying me-myself-I refer to the same person, but that the "me" is different from the "myself" and "I" distinctions.)
However, I have found the same situation when in conversation with those identified as an expert in a given field. Some even feel threatened when confronted by a conversation containing information they may have little knowledge of. Typically, they counter the discussion with questions meant to elicit responses they will measure as being an indication of whether or not they feel they are smarter. Quite often, the subject is changed or they make an excuse which permits them to depart from the encounter. Realizing their uneasiness, I usually let them give themselves the impression of feeling intellectually secure about their grasp of reality, as defined from their intellectual territory.
In realizing there are various instances in which examples might be misinterpreted to be a pattern-of-three (as well as a 3 to 1 ratio), we should also be cognizant of the obverse such that there are instances in which examples are overlooked. Particularly those from before written history.
Clearly, there are Paleo- Meso- Ceno instances of the "three":
- Paleo instances of threes occurred before written history and were not possibly even recognized by any early form of hominid, assuming of course these early hominids did not have even the most rudimentary accounting system. For example, it may have been characteristic for some "John Adam Doe" or "Jane Eve Doe" hominid to pile three stones, collect three flowers or eat three items together. Perhaps they recurringly vocalized some form of "Ugh- Ugh- Ugh" during one task or another. Another example would be an instance in which an early hominid recurringly used three landmarks to chart a seasonal journey. While such "paleo-threes" occurrences maybe lost to us forever, a few others may nonetheless still be found someday through the process of an unearthed discovery.
- Many "meso-threes," occur in the form of artifactual and early form of pictographical (written symbol/numerical/alphabetical)
representation, provide us with a hint that the human mind was constructing multiple ideas involving a pattern-of-three
"formula," whether or not our present definition of "formula" can be applied as an implemented conscious effort on
their part or not. An example of such is that the ancient Egyptian King Tut was buried in three coffins, not to mention the three great
pyramids of ancient Egypt, though this latter example may be what we of the present see and was not a conscious construct of the ancient
Egyptian mind. Another example that took place at different times and different places over long expanses of time is the recurring
three-patterned "One - Two - Many" words-for-numerical quantity identified by those having written about number concept
development.
A present day theologian might argue that these B.C. era examples of "three" prior to the development of the Christian Trinity (Father - Son - Holy Ghost/Spirit) are tell-tale signs that the triune god manifested itself to the ancient Egyptians in the manner fitting for the time and place. Such then would be the argument against the present form of Trinity regardless of symbols, labels or names being applied or what religion extolled their significance. It is merely a symbol appropriate to the present time and place because humans are in a state of ignorance with respect to a more accurate understanding of God (or what is really meant by the G - O - D concept). Hence, present day religions are filled with stupidity.
- The description of a "ceno-three" may, for some researchers, be limited to extremely recent events, while others may prefer to include a century or more such as back to the beginning of the AD era. The length of time inclusive is thus dictated by the scope of their examples for a given area of research. Needless though it may be to say, but all of our present "threes" examples are of the 'Ceno' period... Paleo and Meso examples are products of Ceno- period interpretations.
...Nonetheless, it is important for us to be mindful that in some instances of our present search for past (or more recent) occurrences of the "three," our modern mind may unobservedly superimpose a present day three-patterned orientation (penchant) on material that does not in fact represent an occurrence of a "three," but a "third level" degree of our sincere enthusiasm. (The usage of "third level" is conveyed in a light-hearted tone and is not meant to be disrespectful of those whose personal interests involve a serious, ritualized observation denoted with such labeling.)
Imposing a view on instances which should not be the case, happens quite frequently in both positive and negative ways throughout human interests. For example, it is often employed by some religious perspectives to see "God's will" at work, or describe an act as being that akin to something a religious person would do. Another example is that a mathematician can easily see numerical values or equations in instances that a non-mathematically inclined person does not see or would even consider. A third example is when someone claiming to have a "musical ear" describes every sound as being some sort of music... like those philosophers of the past, using a variety of mental tools to describe events in nature as a "music of the spheres" situation. In short, we can impose a variety of inclinations on events which may not actually be the case, for good or ill, for deceit or efforts to be as intellectually honest as one's sincerity permits.
Page Created: Monday, June 24, 2013, 6:20 AM
Latest Posting: Monday, 10th August 2025... 9:45 AM1