Threesology Research Journal: The Language Narrative
A Language Narrative
7th page

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

Religions and philosophies around the world that purport to describe a certain path by which a person can reach some goal (heaven, to be "one" with (a) god, ultimate truth, paradise, higher consciousness, "oneness", etc...), also describe the lower limits of what a person is not supposed to do, or they will lose their way on the path towards such a goal. Governments also engage in this "1- 2- Many" scenario that is fashioned according to the type of political structure that is being advanced. For example, in the United States we see an explicit usage of the "1/Many" theme in the "E Pluribus Unum" slogan on the presidential seal, which stands for "Out of Many, One". This is exactly what the Jews did when pronouncing their 1 god as being sovereign over all the "Many" gods in use by different pagan groups. ("Pagan" meaning anyone who didn't abide by their faith.) In effect, the U.S. government thus displays an affinity to the Jewish model of Religion and is not a Christian, Islamic, Hindu, or other belief system, though we can easily add all Eastern philosophies to this list as well. However, in terms of the "1- 2- Many" model of conceptualization which apparently repeats itself, the former way of "Pagan" or ancient thinking which came to devise a conglomeration of smaller groups believing in multiple gods, was subjected to a progression of thought with the introduction of the 1-god concept which Judaism offered. It was... cognitively speaking and not spiritually speaking, a step forward. The same level of spirituality remained and was retained, albeit with different labeling. And yet, out of the 1-god Judaism came a 1-god Christianity and a 1-god Islam. All of which were born in desert environments and would not have emerged in the same manner if the terrains had been different.

So now we have Three 1-god religions which should have been enough for humanity to recognize that these three needed a "1" because they represented a "Many" in order to take the cognitive activity of humanity towards its next debut, but this recognition remains oblivious to the majority. Yet perhaps the larger "Many" situation involving all religions and all Eastern Philosophies will be enough for an up-swelling in recognition that it is time for humanity to move forward once again. Just as the Jews consolidated a multiplicity of views into the view of a 1-god for all to be centered on, and that Christianity attempted to do by claiming multiple pagan beliefs as its own by a sleight-of-hand relabeling and re-ceremonialization, and Islam has been trying to do with its efforts of consolidating all of its disparate venues of beliefs under one guardianship; so too is the situation once again with the trek of humanity that it must consolidate all its religions, all the Eastern philosophies, and all those who in their own encampments use one or another partialization of religious or other belief to suit membership needs. Now is a time of a "Many" situation once again that former Jewish leaders confronted against those who sought to retain their multiplicity of beliefs. The state of Judaism, the State Of Israel, the State of Palestine are part of the Many. Humanity must move beyond this Many into another Oneness which no Eastern philosophy has the vision or wisdom or entitlement to offer. All Christian and Islamic faiths, all Hindu faiths are part of the same "Many"... and as a Many, they represent a cognitive paganism. Their minds must both adopt and adapt so that a greater realization of what spirituality is and can be, provides the opportunity to be embraced. This is the state of affairs for humanity today. It is in a primitive "Many" that it must move beyond.

Again, the script "1- 2- Many" will be viewed by some from their vantage point of being a revised version of older ideas already in use. However, let me point out that while it is a "pattern-of-three", it is a different cognitive language. In fact, it is the adoption of a cognitive means of counting, for accounting purposes of all other views. All others are either forms of 3-patterned utterances of babbling, or are only a partial counting theme. Up till now, the philosophy of humanity has resorted to babbling out different utterances. In a few instances it has exposed an effort to develop a measure of counting. The idea of "Monism- Dualism- Pluralism" are a "1- 2- Many" model, but the words being used restricts their application by ordinary thinkers. The practiced, the professional, the gifted thinker can use them as generalized themes but not the average person. Nor can the average person use a 3-part "Major premise- Minor premise- Conclusion" model. The mental ability of most people do not have this type of cognitive language. The "1- 2- Many" is a lingua franca of human cognitive activity. It will assist people in transcending their perceptual valuations. For example, let us take the concept of Infinity. Most of us may think of it as a term which represents some endless series of numbers, but in fact is a label which describes a limit of present humanity's ability to think differently. In effect, it is a "Many". However, if we view Infinity as a positive infinity, then necessarily we would think in terms of a negative infinity, as well as perhaps in a multiplistic way of describing an upper, lower and all-direction infinity or even multiple infinities; though some would want to consolidate this "Many infinities" situation into a singular concept of their being only one infinity. Hence, the word Infinity thus describes for some that the limit of infinity is itself... much like those who view the concept of a singular god. Hence, we are seeing a repetition of the same type of thinking model being illustrated in a different way.

If we adopt the language of expression that Infinity is the "Many", and the "1" is also a limit... even if someone wants to argue negative numbers, fractions, etc., then Infinity is also the "1", because we use the label "Infinity" just as some do with the word "god". It is the same type of thinking but with a different label. The "2" then is all that humanity thinks of otherwise, occurring within or alongside the concept of Infinity or God. Both of which are describing a singular type of thinking being expressed in different ways. Most people would think of Infinity and God as being representative of a "Many" but do not then consider that such a situation... in cognitive terms, means it is time to think of Infinity, of god, of time, of space as a group of "Many". While we are busy describing several limits, we do not collectively realize that the collection which humanity has devised, is similar to the development in which people in the past conceived of Many or Multiple gods, out of which a 1-god concept was developed and professed as the Saviour of human sanity (The word "sanity" in this instance being used to describe the totality of human virtue, essence, spirituality, intelligence, etc...). In a situation where there are Many, the next stage is the adoption of a singularity. As another example let us look to the past before the development of the U.S. Army. There were many, multiple individual groups with different names which allowed themselves to be formed into a single military force headed by those who, in a sense, became the controlling high priests of this new belief that would develop a system in which it is now like a subservient nation within the nation. If we go back far enough in time, the same situation occurred with the development of the 1 Olympics. We see the same thing when several musicians join as 1 group. There are multiple examples which can be used to illustrate that a "Many" situation typically is followed by some measure of singularity.

When one person marries another person we have a 1-situation which becomes a 2-situation that may be called a couple, partnership, etc., but this "2-ness" is not typically referred to as a family. In some instances one or the other or both may have a job or hobby which permits them to create a "many" situation that they alternatively, and not all that uncustomarily may be described as a family, such as when they have a dog, a horse, or other animal, though one or more inanimate objects may be used as a substitute collectivity. In a traditional male/female situation, the two may have or adopt 1 or more children, whereby the "2-ness" now becomes a "3-ness", quite often described as a family. However, the one or more children typically move out and begin the same "1- 2- Many" scenario. Hence, when I say that all the multiple religions and Eastern philosophies in the world are presenting humanity with a "Many" situation, the idea is not that complicated to understand and nor is the need for the Many to become as one. Nor is it difficult to understand how this recurring theme can show up in all subjects using different words and or labels, or even the absence thereof.

In the American Capitalist brand of phony Democracy there is the expression "The American Dream", which essentially describes a desired upper limit goal of obtaining great wealth and Many things (house, car, social status, etc...) which can be acquired. However, a problem arises when we have too many conflicting models of the "1- 2- Many" scenario being advanced by too many institutions, special interests and individuals. This is what took place in the past with religions and philosophies. Even though all of them share the same underlying basic cognitive pattern, they become competing models of ideology simply because of the labels being applied to the upper and lower limits... and the centrality; each of which is being described in their own way as embodying the theme of "The Way, The Truth, The Life" of how a person is thought to be achieving the most accurate representation thereof.

One inherent problem with writing ideas down on paper or a computer screen is that the human mind becomes all too accustomed of thinking either in a left to right, right to left, or up/down, down/up motion when either an alphabet or character script such as Chinese/Japanese calligraphy is used. This does not bode well for the idea of a "1- 2 Many" generality that may not readily be translated into some other-than a language interpretation such as when thinking about forces of energy. For example, the two extremes ("1/Many") can be viewed as an indication of the van der walls force seen in a test tube of water or the elasticity of a vein or artery. In other words, in one sense, there is no automatically visualized projection of a "tube" or container housing the "1- 2- Many" idea, whether the housing is made of glass, concrete, molecular density, magnetism, an equation, or the "walls" in which the Universe is housed, albeit described as accelerating towards "something".

The "something" might alternatively be described in one extreme as a singularity and in another extreme as a "Many". Different labels being used to effect a preferred language or jargon or idiom, etc.... Such ideas as a "Theory of Everything" or "Grand Unified Theory" or words such as infinity, singularity, Universe, source, void, vacuum, black hole, graviton, gluon, quantum, uncertainty principle, etc., are all referencing some position on the "1- 2- Many" scale of conceptualization, but are doing so in the language of cognitive babbling, and not cognitive counting to tally up the overall in order to see the representative cognitive situation of "Many", from which it is time to move on. In other words, all the terms being used represent the situation of a cognitive "Many" having been reached, but... like so many pagan worshipers of their multiple gods, they refuse to believe in some model of "oneness" which begins yet another cycle of the "1- 2 Many" theme, so long as humanity remains on the planet Earth, the solar system and the Galaxy... subject to forces which requires it to adopt a Conservation of Number cognitive activity as a survival mechanism in the incremental deteriorations taking place. The "1- 2- Many" cycle being used in different models of expressed cognitive babbling is a defensive adaptive measure against the hostility of an environment which enforces a Conservation of Number theme to be used by human cognition. Humanity must take a long vacation from itself as it exists under the coercion of present planetary forces.

With regards to the Uncertain Principle, as I have stated before on another web page, that if the Uncertainty Principle is a Certainty, then there can be no Uncertainty Principle. In other words, human cognition located, identified and measured an Uncertainty in what we think is a Certainty of Conceptualization. The idea of Uncertainty tantalizes the minds of many. They like a puzzle and want to live in a world of puzzles... at least one... which is a substitute god object, because it is superior to human thinking. In some sense, it is a state of Enlightenment. Like a soldier needing the potentiality of war, or a racer needing a race, or an entertainer needing an audience, there are those who want the existence of a puzzle, and will even go out of their way to be an obstacle to those or that who/which suggests otherwise. Whatever is needed to keep a puzzle of human thought or feeling or action or imagination, there are those who will engage in that which is needed to help keep the situation alive... but would say otherwise so long at they though the situation was kept in tact even if they denied their role as a supportive agent.

The centrality of the "2" then can be seen either as a caged animal (internalized explosive/expanding force/situation) or a cowering animal (implosive/contracting force/situation) that the externalities/extremities played by the generalized roles of the "1/Many" are either keeping the centrality in or it is keeping them from flinging apart, unless one cares to think more along the lines of a Schrödinger's cat scenario. In the scenario, not counting the observer, we have the ideas of a 1 cat, 2 positions and a quantum Many. However, there is the presence of Magical thinking with the Schrödinger equation.

Ancient Magical thinking evident in the Schrodinger idea

Although Schrödinger didn't use the theme of a "1- 2- Many" he said as much when speaking about waves:

Schrödinger's wave equation

In 1926 the Schrödinger equation, essentially a mathematical wave equation, established quantum mechanics in widely applicable form. In order to understand how a wave equation is used, it is helpful to think of an analogy with the vibrations of a bell, violin string, or drumhead. These vibrations are governed by a wave equation, since the motion can propagate as a wave from one side of the object to the other. Certain vibrations in these objects are simple modes that are easily excited and have definite frequencies. For example, the motion of the lowest vibrational mode in a drumhead is in phase all over the drumhead with a pattern that is uniform around it; the highest amplitude of the vibratory motion occurs in the middle of the drumhead. In more-complicated, higher-frequency modes, the motion on different parts of the vibrating drumhead are out of phase, with inward motion on one part at the same time that there is outward motion on another.

The year before Schrödinger produced his wave theory, the German physicist Werner Heisenberg published a mathematically equivalent system to describe energy levels and their transitions. In Heisenberg's method, properties of atoms are described by arrays of numbers called matrices, which are combined with special rules of multiplication. Today physicists use both wave functions and matrices, depending on the application. Schrödinger's picture is more useful for describing continuous electron distributions because the wave function can be more easily visualized. Matrix methods are more useful for numerical analysis calculations with computers and for systems that can be described in terms of a finite number of states, such as the spin states of the electron. ("atom." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)

Adopting a proposal made by Louis de Broglie in 1924 that particles of matter have a dual nature and in some situations act like waves, Schrödinger introduced a theory describing the behaviour of such a system by a wave equation that is now known as the Schrödinger equation. The solutions to Schrödinger's equation, unlike the solutions to Newton's equations, are wave functions that can only be related to the probable occurrence of physical events. The definite and readily visualized sequence of events of the planetary orbits of Newton is, in quantum mechanics, replaced by the more abstract notion of probability. (This aspect of the quantum theory made Schrödinger and several other physicists profoundly unhappy, and he devoted much of his later life to formulating philosophical objections to the generally accepted interpretation of the theory that he had done so much to create.) "Schrödinger, Erwin." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.

One cat, two positions and a Quantum Many

The "1- 2- Many" model describes not only real and hypothetical limits, but the "2" or 2nd position "centrality" of the two extremes can be viewed in terms of a vacuum. It doesn't have to be a set point "Exactly in the middle", but be an expression of fluctuation such as vibrations which may increase or decrease over/through/below/above an expanse. While some may argue that the idea of a "1- 2- Many" theme is already in use in different language and different situations; those instances are either specialized or the context is specialized, thereby leaving a particular model as presently in use as a specialized jargon and not as a lingua franca (a type of universal language). While one can use the 3-patterned terms of "something- something- something", it doesn't provide a trail of cognitive bread-crumbs by which multiple different interests can understand. The "something- something- something" theme is like coming upon a trail in the pursuit of something only to find it filled with a lot of somethings that a person may not be interested in taking the time to differentiate. The "1- 2- Many" model is much like a primer investigative and analytical tool, though one's own semantics may prefer something such as "1- 2- Multiplicity", "Monism- Dualism- Pluralism", "pennies- quarters- dollars", "small- medium- large", "hell- purgatory- heaven", "ring- rang- rung", etc... And when someone suggests some other form of description with one or more-than-three, they are still met with a situation in which "3 Extremes" or 3 proportionalities are being used, whether they are articulated or not. For example, let us say someone pursues the idea of a philosophy which stresses the necessity of "non-duality", thereby wanting to claim their belief has no "2nd position" in a "1- 2- Many" model. If they propose only some type of a "1/Many" model, these two extremes produce their own centrality, whether it be called a compromise, complement, complementarity, etc...

By deciphering the language of a given subject in terms of a "3 extremes" idea, this is not meant to imply you will necessary be looking for the most extreme points, unless this is exactly what you are hoping to find. Whereas one may say that the outside of an apple are the extreme positions of a "1/Many" idea, the terms "one" and "many" may appear to be unintelligible and inapplicable, because the user is not utilizing them as metaphors for the given context. The "1- 2- Many" model can be used as a cognitive tether, a starting point, a trail of three bread crumbs, even if a particular belief or situation appear to offer only a single clue. Sure, a person may want to create "many" (several, etc...) examples in which to argue against the "1- 2- Many" model, but they are then engaging in the very model in order to dispel its usefulness. Hence, we have a situation where a thinker, philosopher, a "mentalmatician" (instead of using the terms a mentalist or Mathematician), is trying to use a new variant of an old philosophical approach to dispel that which they no doubt use in some other form, but their form is a specialized one, because it suits their disposition for being able to say their way is a unique way, and it takes years to master it. It's like a professional mechanic looking through multiple drawers for a particular tool when a kid comes up and simply used their hand. A person can become so specialized and jargonized that not only do simple tasks evade simple efforts, but that a system of specialists is created, with a specialized language coupled to a specialized social ceremonialism which prevent ordinary people from assisting or wanting to get involved... many of whom are intimated by a structure of artificialized speciality and buy into the rhetoric being offered as a rationale, excuse, reason, etc...

Let us note that while a "many" labeling reference is not always used, the "3" or some reference such as "triplet" may be used as a substitute. For example, let us take the case of Luminescence:

The language of luminescence is clouded by history. Originally, fast luminescence was called fluorescence and slow (i.e., delayed or protracted) luminescence was called phosphorescence. Present scientific practice is to define the terms on the basis of so-called quantum-mechanical selection rules: fluorescence is an allowed transition (e.g., singlet–singlet) and occurs in a typical time of about 109 second; phosphorescence is a forbidden transition (e.g., triplet–singlet) and may require 106 second or longer.

According to the theory of relativity, the velocity of light is a fixed quantity independent of the velocity of the emitter, the absorber, or a presumably independent observer, all three of which do affect the velocities of common wavelike disturbances such as sound. In an extended definition, the term light embraces the totality of electromagnetic radiation.

Matter in bulk comprises particles that, compared to radiation, may be said to be at rest, but the motion of the molecules that compose matter, which is attributable to its temperature, is equivalent to travel at the rate of hundreds of metres per second. Although matter is commonly considered to exist in three forms, solid, liquid, and gas, a review of the effects of radiation on matter must also include mention of the interactions of radiation with glasses, attenuated (low-pressure) gases, plasmas, and matter in states of extraordinarily high density. A glass appears to be solid but is actually a liquid of extraordinarily high viscosity, or a mixture of such a liquid and embedded microcrystalline material, which unlike a true solid remains essentially disorganized at temperatures much below its normal freezing point. Low-pressure gases are represented by the situation that exists in free space, in which the nearest neighbour molecules, atoms, or ions may be literally centimetres apart. Plasmas, by contrast, are regions of high density and temperature in which all atoms are dissociated into their positive nuclei and electrons.("radiation." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)

Luminescence is the emission of light by a substance. It occurs when an electron returns to the electronic ground state from an excited state and loses it's excess energy as a photon. Bioluminescence is when the reaction happens in a living organism. In order to understand this better, we need to understand what is meant by a singlet and triplet state. The electronic states of most organic molecules can be divided into singlet states and triplet states.

  • Singlet state: All electrons in the molecule are spin paired. It is called a singlet because there is only one possible orientation in space.
  • Triplet state: One set of electron spins is unpaired. It is called a triplet because there are three possible orientations in space with respect to the axis.

When we look at excited singlet states, one of the paired electrons from the ground state moves to an excited state but does not change spin. When something happens to the molecule like a collision with another molecule, the electron in the excited state could have a spin inversion. Now, we see an excited triplet state. The problem with this spin flipping, now the electron cannot return to the ground state until its spin is flipped again. Otherwise, Pauli exclusion principle that all electrons must have a different set of quantum numbers would be violated.

Singlet and Triplet states in luminescence

(Notice in the commentary on the image that it speaks of a triplet to singlet disallowance. This can be interpreted to mean that some instances of a "three" or 3rd position do not permit a reversal from a "Many" to "One" or that in the case where it might occur, we are dealing with a "Many" situation which is not an irreversible three position.)

(The Pauli exclusion principle is an) assertion that no two electrons in an atom can be at the same time in the same state or configuration, proposed (1925) by the Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli to account for the observed patterns of light emission from atoms. The exclusion principle subsequently has been generalized to include a whole class of particles of which the electron is only one member.

Subatomic particles fall into two classes, based on their statistical behaviour. Those particles to which the Pauli exclusion principle applies are called fermions; those that do not obey this principle are called bosons. When in a closed system, such as an atom for electrons or a nucleus for protons and neutrons, fermions are distributed so that a given state is occupied by only one at a time.

Particles obeying the exclusion principle have a characteristic value of spin, or intrinsic angular momentum; their spin is always some odd whole-number multiple of one-half. In the modern view of atoms, the space surrounding the dense nucleus may be thought of as consisting of orbitals, or regions, each of which comprises only two distinct states. The Pauli exclusion principle indicates that, if one of these states is occupied by an electron of spin one-half, the other may be occupied only by an electron of opposite spin, or spin negative one-half. An orbital occupied by a pair of electrons of opposite spin is filled: no more electrons may enter it until one of the pair vacates the orbital. An alternative version of the exclusion principle as applied to atomic electrons states that no two electrons can have the same values of all four quantum numbers. ("Pauli exclusion principle." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)

Fluorescence, Phosphorescence (photoluminescence) and Chemiluminescence: (Using ↑above↑ image.)

  1. Fluorescence
    • Absorption of UV radiation by a molecule excites it from a vibrational level in the electronic ground state to one of the many vibrational levels in the electronic excited state. It will now be in an excited singlet state. (see above) This can be show below by the blue arrow #1. The molecule can then undergo vibrational relaxation which is caused by a radiationless transition. This can occur several ways. (1) emission of an infrared photon to go to a lower excited vibrational state (2) transference of vibrational energy to another molecule by collision, to a different vibrational mode within the same molecule or to rotational motion in the same molecule. Once the molecule has reached the lowest vibrational state in the excited state, the molecule will release a photon (of less energy than absorbed) to return to the ground state giving a wavelength in the visible spectrum. What is seen is fluorescence (shown by blue arrow #2).
  2. Phosphorescence
    • When the molecule is in the excited singlet state, another possibility can occur. Sometimes, through collisions, the spin quantum number can be changed producing an excited triplet state. When this happens, the term inter-system crossing is used. The triplet state usually is of lower electronic energy but higher vibrational energy than the singlet state it came from. This is due to the lower inter-electronic repulsion in the triplet state. For this to happen, the molecule should have the vibrational levels of these two states (excited singlet and excited triplet) overlap. This is why only some molecules show phosphorescence. The molecule will become trapped in this state, since returning to the ground state will give two electrons of the same spin. The molecule could still lose vibrational energy to bring it down to the lowest excited vibrational state.
  3. Chemiluminescence
    • When a chemical reaction results in an electronically excited species like the deoxetanone in the firefly reaction, the emission of a photon is called chemiluminescence. Once the excited state is achieved, phosphorescence or fluorescence can occur. Because the reaction is occurring in a living organism, it is labeled Bioluminescence.

(Fluorescence, Phosphorescence (photoluminescence) and Chemiluminescence by Robin McNemar)

Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, 14th March 2020... 6:11 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this page): 1st Jan 2023... 11:19 AM, AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.