page 14
Progressive Thinkers as of 12/1/2022
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spiritual betrothal, spiritual marriage, spiritual union, etc., are words interpreted by some as referencing a notion of a higher consciousness, a higher state of being, an ascendancy proportional to the intensity of emotion being applied to a sense of spirituality whose equality is defined in terms of a subjectively defined humility... but are in actuality just more of the same illusions which has lead to delusions and an ongoing system of psychoses that, because of the quantity of participants, the realization of the collective illness can not be recognized nor even considered as a reality.
The language being used may simply be decided by the gender of the person providing a perspective or their assumed importance in a social context. Notice also that the idea of moving away from "theology to individual experience" is another way of saying moving away from that perceive as being representative of a "Many" to that of the individual, or a "one". Also, the idea of "ecumenism" is to take all the "Many" beliefs and produce a single, comprehensive idealization. The point is that there is a larger pattern-of-three cognitive activity taking place but is being overlooked, and therefore not recorded among the other examples of "three," just as the 2- 3- 4 references aren't and at least one occasion of the 5- 7- 9 (when referencing George A. Miller's "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two; Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information"). Although I don't share the views that Miller did in my recurring experiences with the "three", the opening remarks of his paper may be representative of what others experience, be it a number or otherwise:
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.
But Miller didn't get the correct message from the occurrences of being "sometimes a little larger and sometimes a little smaller than usual". What he was paying witness to was an "ensemble of three". Analogously in a metaphorical sense, he could not see the "tree (three) for the presence of a forest (four-ness)" which he interpreted to be a 7 (subjected to an inclined 2-ness) instead of a pattern-of-three. Hence, even though he reference a pattern-of-three in his analysis and spoke of it, he did not recognize its presence in the formula "5-7-9".
Let me note also that Miller was studying in a field of interest that I too do, but not in the Academic arena. This reference from the Britannica serves to point out what I mean: In Plans and the Structure of Behavior (with Eugene Galanter and Karl Pribram, 1960), George A(rmitage) Miller examined how knowledge is accumulated and organized into a practical "image" or plan.
Had Miller pursued the pattern of his "persecution" he might well have come to realize how knowledge can be itemized and collated to provide us with an image suggested that some plan is taking place, thought not necessarily a plan put into place by humans, much like the plan in which DNA conducts by use of a triplet pattern. An interest in the "three" pattern has led me to realize that there are other recurring patterns (both numbers an otherwise), but in both cases there appears to be a limitation... a Conservation. If we interpret this "Conservation" as a directed (enforced) pattern directed by Nature, we must assume it has to do with survival, but that survival in an incrementally deteriorating environment means we are prone to rationalization. Such rationalizations appear in both religion and philosophy and we might as well consider all belief systems, and yet the human mind is effecting an effort at its own salvation by repeating the repetition in myriad forms and formulas as a hint, a clue to the existence of the enforcement that we need to remove the species from. One of these clues is the three-patterned "1- 2- Many" model.
The expression of a "practical" image or plan in the previous comment is troublesome for me because it does not describe that "practicality" is to be equated with a rationalization consistent with the survival requirements obtainable in a given context and era, and that as we move forward in time those rationalizations are going to become more fixed and conserved due to a lessening of resource availability, if not hoarding by a select few in the upper echelons of social power.
It is a clue that we can see in biology and physics. For example, the "1" can be seen in the presence of single-celled life forms. The "2" is in the doubling of cells. The "Many" not only occurs in the representative limited composition of cells compiled to create a living being, but in the composition of the human species. The adage "be fruitful and multiply" advanced by the biblical tradition is a cognitive representation of this cellular activity. However, because it is a cyclicity, when "Many- Manies" (multiple many) are reached by humanity, which is not far away, there will be a rebirth in the sense that a new "1" will began. This has nothing to do with any religious doctrine or philosophy, business or politics currently be practiced as a belief. All beliefs having been created on Earth, particularly those whose adherents want to claim their's is not of Earth but of some superior non-earthly (such as a supposed heavenly) realm, are to be left by the roadside. Humanity's consciousness will have no need of such rationalizations which were born and sustained by an incrementally deteriorating environment. They are rationalizations created as pseudo-survival strategies that will have no place in the future of humanity. The consciousness of humanity will transcend this present stage of developmental affairs, but it will not be in the sphere of any notion regarding a heaven, paradise, or ascendant-being realm of existence. Such ideas are antiquated notions born in an age of superstition and falsifications perpetrated by those whose roles of leadership are coming to an end for the sake of humanity's future. More gifted others will be forthcoming to lead humanity off the planet, out of the solar system and away from the galaxy.
In the present doctrine(s) of particle physics, there are multiple "1- 2- Many" perspectives to be identified as clues of the approaching dawn of a New Age that is not meant to be lived on the Earth. Earth has an expiration date. So does the solar system and Galaxy. Humanity must look beyond itself as a species and begin to perceive itself as a non-embodied consciousness. Its present embodied consciousness does not have much time (in a far-reaching cosmological sense and not a measurement in which current models of geology are used to stratify life's ascendancy— since its inception billions of years ago). The idea of a "Heaven on Earth" is a notion based on motivations by those whose primary interest is the salvation or increase of their position, their belief, and not humanity. The future of humanity will ensure that the course of evolution which brought today's humanity to its present state of being will not occur in the same way. In the realm of particle physics we find the ideas of "Grand Unified Theory" and "Theory of Everything". These are representative views expressing out of a "many" there exists a "1" that is being sought for.
It is symbolic of the same type of pattern being declared in multiple other subjects with their own respective symbology. Both Eastern philosophies and Western religions in their own way, despite individualized self-centered policies for perpetuating themselves, are reflecting this same idea of "Oneness". That from some collection of "many" is the need for a person to seek a "one-ness" with this or that orientation. They are all symbols of the same underlying pattern being repeated over and over and over again in small, medium and large ways, as well as incremental variations along the span of this three-tiered spectrum. The "Many" in the case of particle physics also is being represented by the repetition of "threes" well recognized by multiple people who have not reached the conclusion that they are paying witness to a "Conservation of Number" being used as a clue to be deciphered into the prevailing message that the collectivity of humanity has reached a "Many"... and the cyclicity of the "1- 2- Many" is similar to that seen in the simple arithmetical activity of the place value notation system. It is a formula where after each set of three is placed a comma. The comma is a point of demarcation that is sometimes expressed by war, famine, disease, revolution, industrialization, wide-spread creativity, unexpected and historically important leaderships, innovation, etc... The comma is a symbolic representation of an underlying cognitive acknowledgement that has not reached a stage of verbalized articulation in order to comment that it is a symbol marking the repeat of a transitional occurrence... until humanity learns how to read the repeating code as a signaling device.
Humanity's occupation of creating warning devices for smoke, water, fire, low oxygen, gas, temperature, earthquakes, etc., is due to an underlying impression attempting to exert itself on human consciousness to reach a state of realization to recognize that repetitions such as the "three" in physics and genetics are themselves codes to be applied to a larger context of life's totality of well-being, and not simply as codes to be constrained as expressions solely for the respective subject in which they occur. The repetitions of numbers and other patterns are Conservations being used as survival mechanisms in an environment which is incrementally deteriorating; but that this language is not to be interpreted to mean it is to be equated with systems of measurement to breed complacency of attitude where a "business as usual" frame of mind is adopted. It is educated ignorance to acknowledge the repetition of the "three" pattern in particle physics and not describe it as a "Conservation of Number" when several other recognized repetitions are provided such a status. When we look at a definition pertaining to Laws of Conservation, the value of "three" meets the requirements:
Conservation Law: (also called "Law of Conservation"): In physics, several principles that state that certain physical properties (i.e., measurable quantities) do not change in the course of time within an isolated physical system. ("conservation law." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
It is incredulous to think that so many brilliant minds in Physics do not consider adopting the recurring presence of "three" as a Conservation Law. What does the public have to do? Hit them over the head with a club to sober them up? Whereas they are permitted to create the rule-of-thumb regarding the adoption of a repetition as a Conservation, but also permitted to exercise a fiat denying it to whatever they want because of some organized underlying superstition of referencing a number pattern that has been used several times in the past to reflect illogicality? Such a practice of intellect is an expressed superstition itself. It represents the attitude of a self-serving witch doctor organization whose personal preference is for something more complex, more difficult to uncover— that the usage of some complex mathematical formula or Einstein-level insight is needed; but that a pattern even grade-school kids can readily see and acknowledge is not an expression of an applied intelligence used to detect some value to be viewed as a grand secrecy; only revealed by those initiated into a particularized orientation akin to a cultish perception that deems that it and only it is favorably positioned to provide insight into the phenomena of particle physics? Even though there is the grandstanding perspective that physicists are uniquely able to conceptualize a search for and establishing some presumed simplicity in some presumed complexity, are we to be led along a path akin to the notion that a child seeing the King has no clothes on is a figment of an untrained, undisciplined, and uncultured mind unable to know how, when, where, why, and what is to be seen and by whom? If not, then let us place the recurring presence of the "threes phenomena" along with the other Laws of Conservation such as:
- Conservation of Energy
- Conservation of Momentum
- Conservation of Angular momentum
In the deepest sense, the three conservation laws express the facts, respectively, that physics does not change with passing time, with displacement in space, or with rotation in space. ("conservation law." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
Hence, with the statement above, we need to fully recognize that they are governed by a "Conservation of Number" law. Thus, we have another instance of a 3 -to- 1 ratio seen also in the "Classical Mechanics" of DNA, RNA, as well as Proteins. All of which express the "1- 2- Many" model. If the same number associations keeping cropping up, then there is the presence of a Conservation of Number. ()
In very many situations we seen an inclination to use the language of secrecy as effecting some especial power. Whereas one might have thought such a need would have vanished as humanity moved towards a supposed greater level of consciousness through the ages, the behavior of keeping secrets is alive and well, as noted by all the usage of passwords, identification badges, slang, gang signs and interests defined as being special or even superior to some norm, or thought as being esoteric... where the word "esoteric" is a word to secretly guard that which may not be easily defined or even desired by its believers to be in need of an exact definition, which increases some supposed mystique. Ah yes, those ancient "mystery religions" might well be a phrase used by future historians to describe events taking place today if no one today records particular "fringe group" activities taking place quietly in social enclaves away from the beaten path that most recorders of history bypass and even those who attempt to take some road less traveled overlook because of some observational preoccupation.
Whereas it may be helpful for some to recite a few examples of mystical language (though as I said, many were secret and did not make it to the light of day in terms of being recorded), the point I want to make is that in many cases the once dominant usage of a habit to transfer language usage of ideas by mere word -of- mouth traditions which lasted before and after the advent of writing; became overlayed in some contexts (at least in Europe), by the "serious" language of Latin in literary genres. While the following excerpt doesn't speak of mystical language per se, it does speak of the arrival of Latin:
The growth of vernacular literature
In literature, medieval forms continued to dominate the artistic imagination throughout the 15th century. Besides the vast devotional literature of the period—the ars moriendi, or books on the art of dying well, the saints' lives, and manuals of methodical prayer and spiritual consolation—the most popular reading of noble and burgher alike was a 13th—century love allegory, the Roman de la rose. Despite a promising start in the late Middle Ages, literary creativity suffered from the domination of Latin as the language of "serious" expression, with the result that, if the vernacular attracted writers, they tended to overload it with Latinisms and artificially applied rhetorical forms... ("Europe, history of." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
What I want to stress that despite all the different styles of thought in whatever culture or era no matter the circumstances, the presence of the recurring three-patterned "1- 2- Many" model keeps showing up, even if the words and symbols come to change in this expression as we move closer to the distant future awaiting the outcome of humanity's cumulative decision about seeking its place away from the Earth, the Solar system and the Galaxy. In other words, researchers in the future may find the use of some other three-patterned model of referencing is more exacting, more definitive for their interests because the "1- 2- Many" model is the wrong blueprint (of symbology) for identifying and deciphering what they are most interested in locating as a repetition of cognitive activity and language.
Let us take an example of Language from The Protestant Heritage in which there are two types of predestination, though I add a third one in order to display the actuality of what views exist, whether or not they are lined up in a "1- 2- Many" model format:
- Single predestination describes those who are to be saved by God were chosen before the fall of Adam (since, on might suppose, Eve was the culprit which caused humanity to fall out of god's grace). Man's sole and total saving is in the hands of god alone.
- Double predestination describes there are some people to be saved and others to be damned.
- Triple (or "Many") predestination is not an actual enumeration like the first two since I am the one creating it in this context; but references those who think that a person can be saved if they engage in what they think are repetitive deeds, acts, and expressions which warrant salvation.
(Source for the first two predestination remarks: "The Protestant Heritage." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
In the following excerpt we see an attempt to wrestle with the "1- 2- Many" pattern, though the pattern-of-three considerations is not recognized and nor is there an awareness that overlapping instances of the occurrence can take place within and across cultures. In the perspective of a counting theme, it is like encountering both individuals and cultures physically living in the same time period but emotionally and mentally living in different eras of conceptualization where their individualized 1- 2- Many scenario may be at the beginning, middle or tail end of someone else's usage of the same theme, albeit clothed with different words and associated ceremonies. One culture may at the "Many" stage of conceptualization for their level of consciousness, but experience the presence of another culture's "one" that may being either behind or in front of their set-of-three formula.
Monotheism: belief in the existence of one god, or in the oneness of God; as such, it is distinguished from polytheism, the belief in the existence of many gods, and from atheism, the belief that there is no god. Monotheism characterizes the traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and elements of the belief are discernible in numerous other religions.
Monotheism and polytheism are often thought of in rather simple terms—e.g., as a merely numerical contrast between the one and the many. The history of religions, however, indicates many phenomena and concepts that should warn against over-simplification in this matter. There is no valid reason to assume, for example, that monotheism is a later development in the history of religions than polytheism. There exists no historical material to prove that one system of belief is older than the other, although many scholars hold that monotheism is a higher form of religion and therefore must be a later development, assuming that what is higher came later. Moreover, it is not the oneness of god that counts in monotheism but his uniqueness; one god is not affirmed as the logical opposite of many gods but as an expression of divine might and power.
The choice of either monotheism or polytheism, however, leads to problems, because neither can give a satisfactory answer to all questions that may reasonably be put. The weakness of polytheism is especially revealed in the realm of questions about the ultimate origin of things, whereas monotheism runs into difficulties in trying to answer the question concerning the origin of evil in a universe under the government of one god. There remains always an antithesis between the multiplicity of forms of the divine manifestations and the unity that can be thought or posited behind them. The one and the many form no static contradistinction; there is, rather, a polarity and a dialectic tension between them. The history of religions shows various efforts to combine unity and multiplicity in the conception of the divine. Because Christianity is a monotheistic religion, the monotheistic conception of the divine has assumed for Western culture the value of a self-evident axiom. This unquestioned assumption becomes clear when it is realized that for Western culture there is no longer an acceptable choice between monotheism and polytheism but only a choice between monotheism and atheism. ("monotheism." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.
In this next excerpt, the "trinity" becomes the "many" which is contrasted by the idea of "oneness". The silliness about all of it is that the Trinity is just another model of Nature worship since the Trinity is a symbolic representation of the "three in one" Sun's phases (or moments) called Dawn- Noon- Dusk. The who Christian trinity ideology is a creative fabrication of a Natural phenomena subjected to imaginative writers who battle one another with asserting different interpretations of a "3 -in- 1" that can be defined as a "many", but causes intellectual problems for those who are caught up in a fragmentation called "oneness". Hence, we see a one/many situation with a silent or "excluded middle" participant.
Attempts to define the Trinity:
By the 3rd century it was already apparent that all attempts to systematize the mystery of the divine Trinity with the theories of Neoplatonic hypostases metaphysics were unsatisfying and led to a series of new conflicts. The high point of these conflicts was the so-called Arian controversy. In his interpretation of the idea of God, Arius sought to maintain a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of that oneness, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by other theologians of his day. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament—such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons.
The basic concern of Arius was and remained disputing the oneness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, in order to preserve the oneness of God. The Son, thus, became a "second God, under God the Father"—i.e., he is a divine figure begotten by God. The Son is not himself God, a creature that was willed by God, made like God by divine grace, and sent as a mediator between God and humankind. Arius's teaching was intended to defend the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism. ("Christianity." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.
In this next excerpt, we can see the presence of the "2" in the "1-2-Many" theme being played out by Christianity, but can also be applied to ideas found in Islam and Judaism. The "hypostatic union" references a dichotomy that could easily be placed in the yin/yang list of dualities. By placing Jesus as the 2nd person in the Trinity, means that the "Father" is the "1" and the Holy Spirit is the "Many", which would be the case if one thinks of Spirituality as a widely spread application amongst believers.
Incarnation: central Christian doctrine that God became flesh, that God assumed a human nature and became a man in the form of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the second person of the Trinity. Christ was truly God and truly man. The doctrine maintains that the divine and human natures of Jesus do not exist beside one another in an unconnected way but rather are joined in him in a personal unity that has traditionally been referred to as the hypostatic union. The union of the two natures has not resulted in their diminution or mixture; rather, the identity of each is believed to have been preserved. ("Incarnation." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
In the above remark on "emptiness", one can either have a singular emptiness, a dual form, or a "many" model in that if emptiness is to engulf everything, just like we label everything as being part of a god, then an emptiness without something is not a true emptiness, or we could not contemplate it. The act of contemplating an "emptiness" gives such a concept substance. Hence a duality of it is or it isn't or does have substance/meaning or doesn't have substance/meaning comes into the consideration. Here is another reference:
Emptiness, also called Nothingness, or Void:
In mysticism and religion, a state of "pure consciousness" in which the mind has been emptied of all particular objects and images; also, the undifferentiated reality (a world without distinctions and multiplicity) or quality of reality that the emptied mind reflects or manifests. The concept, with a subjective or objective reference (sometimes the two are identified), has figured prominently in mystical thought in many historical periods and parts of the world. The emptying of the mind and the attainment of an undifferentiated unity is a theme that runs through mystical literature from the Upanisads (ancient Indian meditative treatises) to medieval and modern Western mystical works. The concepts of hsü(q.v.) in Taoism, sunyata (q.v.) in Maha-ya-na Buddhism, and the En Sof in Jewish mysticism are pertinent examples of "emptiness," or "holy Nothing," doctrines. Buddhism, with its basic religious ultimate of Nirvana as well as its development of the sunyata doctrine, has probably articulated emptiness more fully than any other religious tradition; it has also affected some modern Western considerations of the concept. A good deal of 19th–20th century Western imaginative literature has been concerned with emptiness, as has a certain type of Existentialist philosophy and some forms of the Death of God movement. The particular meanings of "emptiness" vary with the particular context and the religious or cultural tradition in which it is used. ("emptiness." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2013)
Wang Bi, (Wade-Giles romanization) Wang Pi, born 226 CE, China: one of the most brilliant and precocious Chinese philosophers of his day.
By the time of Wang's death at the age of 23, he was already the author of outstanding commentaries on the Daoist classic, the Daodejing (or Laozi), and the Confucian mantic classic the Yijing ("Classic of Changes"). Through these commentaries he helped introduce metaphysics into Chinese thought, anticipating the work of the later neo-Confucians.
According to Wang, while everything is governed by its own principle, there is one ultimate principle that underlies and unites all things. This ultimate principle is Dao, which he interprets as nothingness (benwu). Unlike earlier Daoists, Wang does not see nothingness as essentially in conflict with being. On the contrary, it is the ultimate source of all things; it is pure being (benti). It is because of this theory that "ontology," the study of being, is translated as bentilun in modern Chinese.
In his theory of emotions, Wang was concerned with the need for human beings to control their emotions. At one time he had a low opinion of Confucius because the famous sage was capable of expressing great joy and sorrow. Later, however, Wang decided that emotion belongs to human nature and that even a sage, as a person, can react only like a person. The difference between a sage and a normal person is that a sage will not be ensnared by emotion. ("Wang Bi." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2013)
In this next excerpt we find another reference to the 1- 2- Many using different terms:
The third stage of Nishida's (Nishida Kitaro) philosophy was marked by a reversal of his whole procedure, as is shown in his Hataraku mono kara miru mono e (1927; "From the Acting to the Seeing Self "). Whereas he had always made the self the starting point for his philosophical thinking, he now parted definitely with Transcendental Idealism or, rather, broke through it to find behind it a realm of reality corresponding to his own mystical experience. This may be called the realm of Non-self, or Nothingness, which should not be confused with the non-self of Idealism as the realm of the objective over against that of the subjective, or with annihilating nothingness of Sartre's Existentialism. The "Non-self " of Nishida is the ultimate reality where all subject–object cleavage is overcome. In accordance with Buddhist tradition he called it "Nothingness" and sought to derive the individual reality of everything in the world, whether it be a thing or a self, from the supreme identity of Nothingness. The Idealist "pure self," as the universal consciousness or consciousness in general, is still abstract, while the "Non-self " of Nishida establishes itself as true individuality in the absolute Nothingness, which includes, not excludes, the individual reality of the thing-in-itself (the ultimate reality of things). Indeed, the problem of the individual now became Nishida's chief concern. In his quest for its solution he made an intensive study of Greek philosophy, especially Plato and Aristotle. ("Nishida Kitaro-." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2013)
Date of (series) Origination: Monday, 21st November 2022... 6:00 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this page): 9th January 2023... 11:18 AM AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.