Threesology Research Journal: The Language Narrative
A Language Narrative
page 19

Flag Counter
Progressive Thinkers as of 12/1/2022

Language Narrative Series
~~~ Aesop's Fables ~~~
Preface 1 Preface 2 Preface 3
Prologue 1 Prologue 2 Prologue 3
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

Most people are either Caterpillars, or stuck in some cocoon

The reader may have course heard the expression "Birds of a feather flock together". However, in the context of a discussion on language, it needs to be altered to "Words of a feather flock together". At the moment I thought of this decades ago, I was thinking of rhyme. At the same time I was thinking of all the people using pencils to try their hand and producing some good or great poem, to which I came up with a poem (and is somewhere in one of my journals), that they were acting as alchemists trying to produce poems of gold from their pencil lead. Alas, of those I showed it to, the allusions fell on deaf ears. Such is the plight for those of us from a distant world who came upon this Earth-planet and have to contend with those who sally-forth merely trying to mark their territory from place to place and can not lift up their eyes to see a butterfly fluttering by upon whose wings are symbols which may be used to convey communications above and beyond the throng. Tis a pity for those who have not seen such a collection that I now share:

 Butterfly poster by Kjell bloch Sandved

Language, Language everywhere, and no perfect word to speak. No perfect word, no perfect symbol, no perfect gesture, no perfect note, no perfect equation, no perfect perfection. Tis the real bane of human existence for not only being deficient in the ability to express oneself, but to perceive and to interpret those perceptions during a period of time in history where distinct echo chambers of different ideas may reverberate as concentric rings on a pool of listeners who are more interested in using one or another way as a launching pad for their own research surf board. Since a great perception that is interpreted poorly coupled to even a greater selection of crude words, or symbols, or sounds, or colors (etc.) can make the entire sequence exhibit an ambiguity with a permeating dissonance; we are left only to imagine something more perfect. It is an idea which has crossed the minds of others:

3-part emphasis by Samuel Taylor Coleridge: I believe that the process of thought might be carried on independent and apart from spoken or written language. I do not in the least doubt that if language had been denied or withheld from man, thought would have been a process 1) more simple, 2) more easy, and 3) more perfect than at present. (I recopied this from: 3s poster column 3)

Some believe that the study of numbers (once viewed as a philosophy but later defined as a science with the name of "Mathematics"), is a greater purity of thought process and therefore a greater language with which to communicate. In fact, some movie script writers have bought into this idea by claiming that Mathematics is a Universal language which all sentient beings in the Universe will understand. It matters not that humans made up the currency with which the various ideas of Mathematics are traded (communicated), all sentient species have the same translation device, no doubt purchased from some Galactic model of the Big Box shopping store. While some think that Numbers (for example) are not ready-made having been created by humans, there is an exception to be made. Nonetheless let me first point out those who held the idea that numbers (as a form of language), are not occasioned by Nature as mentioned in this Britannica excerpt about Phenomenology:

The point of departure of Husserl's investigation (into phenomenology) is to be found in the treatise Der Begriff der Zahl (1887; Concerning the Concept of Number), which was later expanded into Philosophie der Arithmetik: Psychologische und logische Untersuchungen (1891; Philosophy of Arithmetic: Psychological and Logical Investigations). Numbers are not found ready-made in nature but result from a mental achievement. Here Husserl was preoccupied with the question of how something like the constitution of numbers ever comes about. ("phenomenology." Encyclopædia Britannica.)

I have to take issue with this based on some additional information regarding whether or not numbers are naturally occurring. Whereas number symbols as used by humans are not necessarily found ready-made in nature, the values of enumeration might possibly be. For example, we have one cell that divides into two and continues a doubling form of juggling activity to which we may later ascribe the concept of Many, much, plurality, a lot, multiple, etc., to. In other words, the language of biology is expressed within the confinement of its ability to articulate, which humanity as set itself about the task of decoding. With respect to number symbols occurring in nature, or patterns which humans may come to label as number and letters, the following Butterfly alphabet shows both letters and numbers on the wings of butterflies. Such patterns are natural, but not necessarily how they are adapted and to what purpose used.

The Butterfly chart of letters and Numbers by Kjell Bloch Sandved

There is nothing to say that Nature does not speak in a language or languages which humanity might learn not only to read, but communicate in the same or some similar way with other humans, if not other life forms. Numbers and letters used in the English alphabet can be see as shown by the patterns on butterfly wings. It is not known if the letters of other languages could be found in a similar way. Whereas we can seen numbers or at least patterns which are interpreted to be similar to numbers used by humans, this is not to say that Nature engages in a similar model of placing them in the same sequence or at all. Nor do we at present recognize any natural expression of complex mathematics, unless such complexity as used by humans has a more simplified form used by Nature. Nature need not be as stupid as the presumed intelligence of humans. Nor does it need to engage in mathematics in the same manner. Whereas humanity thinks of the speed of light, Nature doesn't need to because it is such a common activity it can be taken for granted. The is no pressing academic for Nature to engage in the study of the Universe by the Universe. Similarly, a primitive tribe need not take on an Anthropological survey of its beliefs practiced on a daily basis. In addition, the feats of strength, speed and agility in the animal and insect kingdoms have no need for record keeping or Olympic medals. Only humanity is obsessed with such non-productive nonsense.

And yet, we humans find enumeration taking place in Nature... but not that nature itself is counting in terms of the distinctions humans find when counting. Whereas it is said some animals appear to show the use of a rudimentary form of counting, we do not know if they are actively counting or simply have some impression about more and less. Whereas more or less can be more easily detected in small quantities, the presence of a larger quantity is more difficult. For example, you might not be able to distinguish a jar with 100 jelly beans from the same jar which has 99 jelly beans. The point at which one might be able to tell may be different among different people, with some who guess better... or correctly, more frequently. The point is, the act of consciously counting for an understanding of quantity can be different from those whose physiology has a means to register quantity differences or similarities without a person having to count or even knowing how to count. Some people are quite good at reading their impressions to the extent such a repetition might be labeled a gift, an insight, an intuition, or other uncommon ability marker.

Aside from enumeration in terms of counting, different humans at different times of history have wondered about the nature of numbers as a language, thought they may not have brought up the word "language" in there meditative or social conversations. It is rather unfortunate that so many have fallen into the trap of following a trail which leads them astray from their initial consideration on the nature of numbers towards viewing numbers in terms of human-created mathematics. While such a trail might seem to be the logical footfall upon a sequential stone that is later called logic or being logical, let us take a step back in time once again to review this idea of numbers:

What exactly is a number? It is easy to see what two sheep or two apples are; you can find them in the real world. But what is 2? You never meet 2 in a field or a fruit bowl. The symbol 2 is not a number but a symbol for a number. Until the 19th century, numbers were considered to be given by God—they simply were. No one had to define the concept. Even in the 19th century the German mathematician Leopold Kronecker said, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man."

Since the symbol "2" has been brought up and I have it in mind, it is a curious thing for the English language to have specific language or word-related orientations involving "Two", but appears to be absent of such references in terms of four or more:

  • Forked tongue
  • Double-speak
  • Legal doublets
  • Double down (bet again after a loss)

We also have words which represent a dual state like "liar", "fibber", back stabber, cheater, etc...

For "threes" examples one might sight entire phrases such as the American courtroom triad oath of honesty:

  • Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... so help you god?

And while we have three-word expressions such as "Home-sweet-Home", one might instead refer to this as an embellished duality by counting the 1 rhyme of the same word or this 2-set and the "sweet" word as a dual setup. Whereas we can quibble about a lot of different arrangements in such a manner, our groupings tend to follow a course of calculus one might cite as an expression of an environmentally induced cognitive behavior of fusion, or as an indication of an incremental deterioration that we might also reference as a Conservation of Number.

The point to be made is that we do not have similar large number references. Hence, let us ask if the human brain is engaged in repeating some measure of an early counting system, as if the repetition is meant to place a certain cognitive activity at the forefront of practice so that when a particular environmental setting occurs which will both permit and encourage a development beyond such a pattern, the human brain will be poised to do so... like horses at a starting gate?

I think the recurring language patterns that we are relating to cognitive behavior are much like cognitive appendages. And like appendages, if I may be permitted to use the horse's hoof as an example, is now showing a development of three bones having fused together, though there were more than three bones in the feat of earlier horses as well as the fact that the five-toed (Pentadactyl) was not the only numerical pattern generated by evolutionary forces on the biology of vertebrates.

Whenever we humans develop a theory, we are using language. Most often the language reveals the usage of a low number being referenced such as the 3 laws of motion or the 3 laws of planetary motion. "3" is the value being expressed and not 2, or 4, or 5, etc... But even if there were 7 laws of motion, this quantity is still a low value, and it is a low value that has more frequency of usage than other low numbers, but much more than large number values being used only rarely. We do not have, for example, 23 laws of this or 96 laws of that being found in nature. Theory after idea, after notion, after assumption, after a consideration... etc, all use low values. This means something is forcing humans to use a "Conservation of Number" as a survival mechanism which is in step with an incrementally deteriorating environment.

Any number can be referenced as a symbol and/or quantity. One is artistic, the other mechanistic or mechanical. When an infant expresses what adults claim to be a 2-part combination of 1 Consonant and 1 Vowel, this "chunk" is not further provided with the distinction of being a basic reference to a fundamental process of brain activity. If it is not cognitive, then what part of the brain is generating it and why? Why don't adults assign the third value of Suprasegmnetal to the "chunk", and assign it a three-part order of CVS (consonant- vowel- suprasegmental), to be viewed in comparison with the word order of a Subject, Object, Verb, which is just another cognitive variation of a three-part sequence?

Language is the most common medium being used to express ideas and under scrutiny, we can detect recurring patterns which we can assign numbers to. When we look at these numbers, we find a recurring... repetitive use of low numbers in our expressions, consistent with the low numbers seen in infant babbling where the Consonant/Vowel pairing is commonly ascribed. From single, to double to triple expressions is not uncommon. Nor is the from two to many sequence (where the CV pairings being repeated are called reduplications) and many such reduplications occurring in a single moment of singular breath are not being counted as part of an enlarged approach and appreciation to/of human language tied to cognitive development in terms of expressed enumeration reflected in the language-related development of early counting, with its 1- 2- many three-patterned sequencing.

The 19th-century German logician Gottlob Frege attempted to define a number as "the class of all classes that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a given class." Basically, what he had in mind was that the abstract number 2 can be considered as the class of all pairs of objects: two sheep, two apples, two whatever. Lump all the pairs together, and the result is a single well-defined object that captures the essence of 2. Mathematicians would have been entirely happy with this definition, save for one problem. The English philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out that the phrase "class of all classes that..." may not always have a sensible meaning. He stated his famous paradox about "the class of all classes that do not contain themselves." Equivalently, it is the paradox of the barber who shaves everyone who does not shave himself. So who shaves the barber? Or imagine a catalog of all catalogs that do not list themselves. Does this super-catalog list itself or not?

Today, numbers are viewed as logical constructs, and their existence holds good only in a rather abstract mathematical sense in which something exists if it is not logically self-contradictory. Numbers are defined in terms of conceptually simpler objects, sets, through a kind of counting procedure. The Russell paradox is no longer a problem, but it has been replaced by the far deeper paradox of the Austrian-born American logician Kurt Gödel. Gödel's theorem states that if arithmetic is not self-contradictory—that is, if numbers exist in the mathematical sense—then that fact can never be proved mathematically. So perhaps numbers really are as mystical as many people believe. ("number symbolism." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013... Author: Ian Stewart, Professor of mathematics at the University of Warwick, England. Author of Concepts of Modern Mathematics, Does God Play Dice, Flatterland, From Here to Infinity, and Nature's Numbers.)

I certainly agree with the foregoing author about numbers not being proved by mathematics, because mathematics does not truly know thyself, since it forgot to embrace such a dictum centuries later and supposedly coined by the first Greek Philosopher Thales of Miletus. It (mathematics) has to be able to think beyond itself but "nothing in excess" (a coinage also credited to Thales as well); but can not do so because Mathematics has not recognized itself to be based on dualities. In other words, its origin can be traced back to an intellectual purview involving dichotomies stemming from early fertility rites which distinguished (like the Chinese) the male and female dichotomy that is said to have arisen from a singularity noted as hemaphroditism. Hence, from a 1-patterned cognitive conceptualization to a 2-patterned, and then later attempts to secure an (as yet) fully-fledged tripartite orientation. (Indeed, Thales created the idea of a single material substratum for the Universe, namely water or moisteure.) It is a conceptual framework which adopted the garments of a rudimentary tripartite Indo-European culture following the use of an earlier bipartite formula, though it had a cognitive counter-part of development much earlier in China under the (artistic) calligraphic expressions of a dualistic philosophy noted today as the yin/yang hypothesis. However, the problem remains. Numbers as patterns, numbers as symbols related to quantities, and both as a type of language... separate or combined. Whereas numbers can exist as patterns and those patterns can be interpreted as symbols and those symbols associated with the idea of quantity, we must taken into consideration this three-sequenced formula as a recurring theme of nature from which can be produced one or another narrative we can apply to our individual or collective lives from which to benefit... or trip ourselves up. There in fact may be multiple messages to be derived from the three-part sequence applied to any subject. And yet, do we look for a particular pattern, symbol or quantity whose identity may be substituted with other characteristics such as mood, gender, race, age, height, weight, terrain, culture, education, ability, etc? In other words, instead of using "quantity" as that to be measured, some other variable is used instead.

No writings by Thales survive, and no contemporary sources exist; thus, his achievements are difficult to assess. Inclusion of his name in the canon of the legendary Seven Wise Men led to his idealization, and numerous acts and sayings, many of them no doubt spurious, were attributed to him, such as "Know thyself" and "Nothing in excess." According to the historian Herodotus (c. 484–c. 425 BC), Thales was a practical statesman who advocated the federation of the Ionian cities of the Aegean region. The poet-scholar Callimachus (c. 305–c. 240 BC) recorded a traditional belief that Thales advised navigators to steer by the Little Bear (Ursa Minor) rather than by the Great Bear (Ursa Major), both prominent constellations in the Northern Hemisphere. He is also said to have used his knowledge of geometry to measure the Egyptian pyramids and to calculate the distance from shore of ships at sea. Although such stories are probably apocryphal, they illustrate Thales' reputation. The poet-philosopher Xenophanes (c. 560–c. 478 BC) claimed that Thales predicted the solar eclipse that stopped the battle between King Alyattes of Lydia (reigned c. 610–c. 560 BC) and King Cyaxares of Media (reigned 625–585 BC), evidently on May 28, 585. Modern scholars believe, however, that he could not possibly have had the knowledge to predict accurately either the locality or the character of an eclipse. Thus, his feat was apparently isolated and only approximate; Herodotus spoke of his foretelling the year only. That the eclipse was nearly total and occurred during a crucial battle contributed considerably to his exaggerated reputation as an astronomer. ("Thales of Miletus." Encyclopædia Britannica.)

Thales' disciple and successor, Anaximander of Miletus (610–c. 546 BC), tried to give a more elaborate account of the origin and development of the ordered world (the cosmos). According to him, it developed out of the apeiron ("unlimited"), something both infinite and indefinite (without distinguishable qualities). Within this apeiron something arose to produce the opposites of hot and cold. These at once began to struggle with each other and produced the cosmos. The cold (and wet) partly dried up (becoming solid earth), partly remained (as water), and—by means of the hot—partly evaporated (becoming air and mist), its evaporating part (by expansion) splitting up the hot into fiery rings, which surround the whole cosmos. Because these rings are enveloped by mist, however, there remain only certain breathing holes that are visible to human beings, appearing to them as the Sun, Moon, and stars. Anaximander was the first to realize that upward and downward are not absolute but that downward means toward the middle of the Earth and upward away from it, so that the Earth had no need to be supported (as Thales had believed) by anything. ("philosophy, Western." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)

Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, 14th March 2020... 6:11 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this page): 9th January 2023... 11:29 AM AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.