Threesology Research Journal
Novum Organum Threesiarum
(New Instrument of Threes)
- page four -

(The Study of Threes)

In cataloguing examples of lists as a precursor to an analysis of thought processing from which we derive excursions of indexing called logic, since logic is a method by which ideas may be indexed; we should make mention of those long lists typically called a dictionary; within which words are placed into an order of logic commonly referred to as alphabetically. While the first dictionaries are said to have been merely lists of words which may or may not have been accompanied by a glossary (a specialized form of list about one or more aspects concerning the list which, in other words, is a list about the list); later dictionaries, for example, provided additional information such as the origin of the word, an example of the word in a sentence, and accent marks for pronunciation.

Necessarily so, this New Instrument of Threes is a listing about lists which may in turn, contain yet other lists. Hence, it is an unrecognized tripartite viewing though integrated sub-categorizations might incline some to resort with a one-upmanship retort by suggesting a multiplicity to imply a personalized superiority of perception. It is characteristically reminiscent of the bantering I have been accustomed to by participating in a periodic dialogue with a younger sibling whose choice of words very often have underlying meanings underscored with a point of origin our memories share due to the similarities of some experiences.

With respect to dictionaries, though referenced items in encyclopedias might well be included as an example, the additional content related to words (or ideas) may not have taken place if it weren't for the inception of the list by someone taking the time to collect the different words (or ideas), that we might also call sounds. And speaking of sounds, if the reader would not mind a brief digression, there is of need for one or more people to begin a collection of different sounds with an attributive analysis. This will be helpful to those in the future who will want to know if they hear different sounds than we do today... as a means of distinguishing whether or not human hearing and sound production are changing... and to what degree. In addition they may have developed a means to hear colors in the sense of rendering the different wave lengths into audible tones.

In other words, do different cultures think differently simply because they think differently, or because there are distinct (or subtle) differences in physiology such as hearing? How do we know some distant culture in the past didn't "see" things differently because they didn't hear differently? What if we were to encounter a culture where everyone heard sounds like Mozart or Beethoven or had diminished hearing? Whereas their diminished hearing would be the norm and our normal hearing would be considered superior... if not evidence of a person's insanity because they were speaking of things no one else could perceive. Imagine trying to tell everyone about a "babbling" brook but no one else could hear it. They might think you are "hearing" ghosts, or voices.

The present types of collecting sounds with the current widespread emphasis on a particular genre of music is a bit amateurish, despite the sincerity of intent. Such collections typically revolve around one type of music, a single song writer's and/or singer's work, or the work of a single race, such as when I witnessed a young black male collecting, and haphazardly sorting different music from various black performers. By promoting them as being first and foremost, he was symbolically attempting to project his own presumed uniqueness. Yet, we can assume this same activity occurs with all races. Simply put, this is not the type of collecting to which I am referring in terms of establishing the ground-work for a larger overall analysis of sounds, both human generated and otherwise.

There are a great deal many more sounds and the cataloguing thereof needs an additional list of what methods were used to collate and collect them. A strict scientific analysis related to amplitude, distortions, etc., is not enough. There needs to be a dictionary, encyclopedia and museum of sound forms, types, arrangements, etc... from different perspectives— and a list of those differing perspectives must also be catalogued and analyzed with different perspectives... and these, inturn, catalogued as well. But the same goes for collecting "threes". Simply collecting, organizing and analyzing threes from, for example, a religious "Trinity" formula, is extremely "youthful" (childish and reminds me of elementary kids taken on a "field trip" about the school grounds to collect different colors of leaves as part of a "science" discussion intermixed with an arts and crafts project. Whenever I had to participate in such excursions, and even though I had fun in the arts and crafts projects, I was always conscious that there was something suspiciously missing from the so-called "science" discussion involving the collection, listing, and analysis thereof. The "science" discussions were far too simplistic for someone like me.

With respect to the collections of words which later became called a dictionary, they might well also be called an encyclopedia with all the extra information being provided since they do entail the descriptions of ideas. Whereas there are museums describing different ideas, most focus on a singular topic, such as the small museums found as enclaves of a local history, though these too are often set up to represent the biases of the collector and collater. And yet, dictionaries change over time to present only the words and meanings of contemporary usage, though many words have origins in the past from which were derived contemporary views based on older ideas.

The devi1 you say! (1K)

For example, the word "Devil" being used today because of religion's propaganda efforts to manipulate the public to support those who want to spend their lives in contemplating some idea about spiritual "Enlightenment", by adopting methods which manipulatively "encourages" people to give them money called tithing; instead of calling it taxes or allude to some make-believe character called "production costs", instead of putting an actual name to it called greed by way of desires for increased wages.

And it is of some interest to note that many people do not hold a strict observance of a religion as practiced and preached by religious authority. There is widespread individual interpretation of interpretations based on still other interpretations. Because of this, the payment of tithing to a church (etc.,) is not so much a the support of a church as its authority interprets and preaches, but that it permits digressions of views, and it is not a payment for supporting the whole of the religion's belief. "Scripture" does not mean "Stricture", even though some adherents profess their interpretation as "The" right one and deviations there from are wrong.

In other words, like the usage of words which change, degrade and may become placed into disusage over time, current systems of payment are being used to support varying systems engaged in self-change, self-degradation, and in many cases, self-obsolescence. This is occurring in business, government and religion and our systems of education. But no one lives long enough to recognize the changes nor if they did, would necessarily have the perception and mindset of making an appropriate list to catalogue the changes. Present and past history "lists" are poor records, particularly note when it is described as being written by the victor. This is but one reason for the need to adopt a new form of list making, keeping, and presentation. Current forms such as writing a history book do not account for its participation in the overall changes taking place, despite all the efforts exerted towards an unbiased objectivity. Nor should any claim about being "only human" be derived into an acceptable allowance whereby present status-quo indulgences remain unquestioned or unaltered.

While we can assume that most historians are sincere in their efforts to be as accurate as possible, they very often are an unseen variable in the equation. Historians must adopt a better formula. They need to re-think history, their role, and particularly how it is to be taught. The "Phenomena of Threes" plays a role in many different histories. However, its presence is seldom recognized to the point of being made a comment about because the topic of "Threes" remains in the realm of superstition, numerology, and other esotericisms so as not to be taken seriously. Patterns-of-three occurrences are very much a part of history, but if at all recognized, are automatically relegated to a type of Piltdown man (hoax) assemblage with little bearing on a serious study. It's like the altitude of ancient philosophers engaged in the "serious" study of their philosophy yet didn't know what to make of a collection of fossils when presented to them. They didn't know how to think in terms of "hard" evidence which could not be easily controverted by some circular dialogue in which to bring another to think in the same terms as themselves.

In terms of thinking about "threes", no one appears to ask how being on the third planet from a source of energy may effect us similarly. Do we think in threes because we are on a third-positioned planet? Is a "threes" orientation part of an evolutionary process? Why do we assume that evolution occurs only in a biological framework such as physiology or genetics? Is that which has influenced the origination of "threes" changing, and thus affecting the threes phenomena? Clearly, we are like the ancient philosophers so caught up in the "seriousness" of our own thoughts we do not know how to accurately interpret the evidence being shown us. Be it business, religion, sports, politics, mathematics, or whatever, most of us esteem our perspectives in a lofted way so much so we take the ground upon which we stand, for granted. And I am not talking about an environmentalist's perspective, though this is also true.

I am what I am (2K)

Now getting back to my preempted comment about the word "devil", originally, it would appear, from chancing upon a brief citation about the origin of the word "Devil"; it was derived from the ancient Greek word "diabolos", which referred to a slanderer or accuser. No doubt those in the past attempting to use some religious perspective to conduct some illicit activity (or simply some "out of touch with reality perspective") were not as adept at concealing a perceived deceit, as are many of those who inhabit different religions today... such as in the case of "priestly ordained and protected" child molestation.

There is no telling what disgusting activities took place "in the name of some god", or a professed "moral authority", "infallibility", or "divine right" in the past, as well as even today... since, for example, no one today would dare think that a religion would be engaged in organized crime, immorality, or self-serving motive that may or may not result in direct or indirect harming of someone. The "harm" very often takes the place of using tithing payments to furnish the construction of expensively built housing for various clerics who try to conceal it by building multiple structures at the same time as a preparatory defensive gesture in case the public should open up their eyes and realize how duped they actually are... but want to defend themselves for being accused of stupidity and may thus offer support for acts which are little more than a peasantry providing more for their assumed betters than they themselves could every possible acquire.

But not all crimes are this obvious nor even viewed as crimes by the common perception of indulging in the same mindless repetitions religions are know for and expect of their "flocks" of dumb, unsuspecting animals being bled of their money, property, and energies. However, conversely, when someone of a particular religious persuasion is focused on by one or more government agencies, such as when the Branch Davidian Complex in Texas was under siege by U.S. law enforcement who said, for example, the leader of the group was engaged in immoral acts with children; the U.S. government nor journalists saw (or at least did not publicly speak of) any hypocrisy when a tank was used to attack the overall complex which also housed these innocent children, which resulted in a widespread fire that killed many of the children as well as adults within.

And despite all the deaths, no one heard of any law enforcement person losing their job or pension... though some actions such as this may have occurred without being recorded by a journalist. But, some were used as scapegoats (such as Janet Reno) to hide the lynch mob mentality, but no one, that we know of, spent time in prison for their part in executing, what amounted to was murder. There were a lot of excuses and a lot of finger pointing, just like religious people did in the past when it established a relationship with the Devil... as an advocate to help support its cause(s).

one, two, three, cha-cha-cha (2K)

With respect to the word "Devil", and its ancient usage in the form of "diabolos", it was easy for religious people to collectively begin to use it to describe, in general, a specific "evil entity", without reflexively accusing and slandering any real person specifically, whom might seek revenge by way of a forceful reprisal, and yet also be able to claim some phony "credible evidence" (like the past Bush Jr. administration in the American government when it conducted a war in the Middle East, by perpetrating the phony "Evil" called Weapons of Mass Destruction—, abbreviated with three-letters as WMD's — are in the hands of a terrorist, in order that Bush could enact some personal revenge by going after Saddam because he supposedly tried to kill his "daddy" when he was the president, as well as make money for political campaign contributors such as Haliburton). But let us not forget there are:

Three types of WMD's: Biological, Chemical, Nuclear; each with its own "three"-symbol configuration that is overlooked just like the three "points" of the Devil:

biohazard (1K) chemical (1K) nuclear (1K)

Religious people of the past, through generations of followers, are continuing to conduct a war against non-believers in the present, as well as against personal fears and the internalized fears of others, by claiming their own form of "WMD" called the Apocalypse which is being perpetrated by a terrorist called the Devil; because they and their questionable "god, religious or social" activities were and are still being denounced... which includes their belief being questioned by themselves. A religious mentality, to denote a particular form of "empiricism", often twists, turns, mixes, and partialises events and information to suit its perspective, no matter how much nonsense is perpetrated on future generations. And though I label it "nonsense", others label it in a positive way because it is that from which their rationale is derived.

Some of the nonsense is listed in what are called religious texts, that are supposed to be interpreted and referenced as truth, instead of as encyclopedias of particular perspectives held over thousands of years. Biblical texts are like particular types of geological stratification which would seem to provide overall credibility, and would thus do so, if so much of the stratification wasn't contrived. Biblical texts are like an archaeological site whose artifacts were poorly excavated, catalogued and interpreted. The "Archaeologists" involved in the excavations are too involved in trying to confirm some presumed religious truth, than they are in documenting the evidence and listing the differing interpretations thereof. Unfortunately, far too many equate the word "religion" with truth, so long as it is their religious belief. However, religious nonsense thrives because there is a market for it.

Religious texts are lists of words, ideas, people, places, events and time periods. And like the dictionaries of old, they have been altered for the particular time period in which they are being presented. Hence, like the meanings of words whose origins become lost, the "true" meaning of words, phrases and ideas in religious texts are also lost... superimposed by contemporary perspectives based on individual experiences. The "true" meaning of an ancient text requires an understanding of the ancient language within the context it occurred, of which there are no living descendants thereof and the respective environments have long since vanished, even though some remnants may be inferred as remaining due to the primitive state of some living circumstances which are claimed to be representative of an earlier era. What we of today have are interpretations of interpretations of interpretations... like the copy of a copy of a copy that is an image slightly more altered than the previous copy made on a copy machine. Hence, some might say that the belief of today is a poor facsimile of the belief once held in the distant past. Additionally, some might want to ask: "How then does one achieve a more truer form?" I will leave such an answer to the individual reader for their particular interest, though discussions in the Novum Organum Threesiarum might find applicability elsewhere.

There are many instances, with dictionaries and encyclopedias but two selected examples thereof, where the beginning collections no doubt seemed like an oddity to the typical behavior of the "common sense" person. And we should refrain from any inclination to suppose that our present forms of list making are the definitive type that could ever be conceived of. Such thinking is the same that has no doubt occurred time and again with the writing of a text... all of which are lists in one form or another.

And we should also mention newspapers as lists, though the lists of perspectives are not well categorized in terms of specialized collections on a given topic, even though there are newspapers with sections divided into particular headings such as the obituary "column", sports section, TV guide, etc. But most people don't think of newspapers as lists. And most people, I assume, don't make lists about different types of lists nor take time to think about them as a type of logic. Particularly not a type of logic that can be improved on. But I am not talking about improving how a list is structured with respect to a given set of information, but the "list" as a type of expressed model of thinking.

For example, most lists are arranged in a serial fashion like counting from 1 to 1,000, with information arranged according to some inclination such as the alphabet, date, place, person, event, etc... Other lists, even though the list maker may not be aware of it, are arranged in an elementary formulaic fashion such as analogously expressed in the equation 1 + 1 = 2. Though someone might argue that the arrangement of a list needs to be arranged in an elementary fashion so that it is appealing to the average person's typical indexing logic, list making nonetheless remains on a very primitive level. The mind of the average person can not advance beyond its primitive associative cataloguing efforts if it is not challenged to think alternatively.

Whereas someone may collect different lists such as cook books, thinking their efforts to be an advanced form of thinking beyond the norm which is the accumulation of a small collection for a given setting; no one has thought to be more comprehensive about the "cooking" form of logic, aside from the obvious food preparation activity, nor about a "cook-book" logic. Why not keep one's life as simple as possible? Why the elaboration of one's thinking, and with the type of information selected? Why make a list of items which are lists of ingredients? Why is there no game show which challenges the knowledge of participants about particular ingredients about a particular recipe? Why do recipes take the word/number form that they do? Are cooks would-be chemists, and chemists would-be some other professional that is yet to come like chemistry having evolved out of alchemical interests? In short, most people, again, I assume, don't think about thinking aside from thinking about it in terms of "higher" forms of thinking such as philosophy. And they don't categorize it except on some superficial level. Others and myself are pursuing an effort to take the listing of "threes" beyond the earlier forms of superficiality.

HGWells (3K)

The production of a list might well at first appear childish, a curiosity, or some form of doodling. But lists are necessary because they are the foundation for a more concerted analysis of the overall information and an exploration into individual items thereof. Let me provide some old comments made by H.G. Wells in his book "The Outline of History", page 13, section 1, Book 1:

It was only in the eighteenth century that strata and fossils began to be studied systematically; it is only in the nineteenth that the recognition of the real scale and quality of these accumulations, the Record of the Rocks, became widespread. There was a great struggle to establish the authority of the Record against the prejudices of those to whom a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible was dear. Many men still living took an active part in that great emancipation of the human mind. Gradually the perspectives of mankind changed and elongated. Two hundred years ago the imagination of our race had a background of six thousand years. Now that curtain has risen also, and men look back to a past of scores and hundreds of millions of years.

H.G. Wells was talking about the development of a science derived from information compiled in a list. However, he doesn't mention the initial steps of collected information which, no doubt were sporadic and piece-meal accumulations. Now let me re-create the above comments by inserting the topic of "threes" into it:

it was only in the 21st century that both modern and ancient forms of "Threes" examples began to be studied systematically; it is only in the 22nd century that the recognition of the real scale and quality of these accumulations, the Record of the Threes, became widespread. There was a great struggle to establish the authority of the "Threes" Record against the prejudices of those to whom a strictly literal interpretation of the "Three" as a singular numerical reference associated with the Bible and other authoritative (scientific) texts, was dear. Many men and women conditioned by "politically, academically, and religiously correct" orientations took an active part in that great emancipation of the human mind based on prejudiced traditions of old. Gradually, the perspectives of mankind changed and elongated. Two hundred years ago the imagination of our race had a background of six thousand years. Now that curtain has risen also, for most, and humanity looks back to a past of scores and hundreds of millions of years... and yet, with respect to the Threes Phenomena, most remain in the darkest of ages.

But making a list may be based on an accumulation of false information. Nonetheless, in analysis, one needs to make mention of this, if it is known, and that one's analysis is factual about false information. Also, the quantity and type(s) of false information can thus be analyzed as a record of when, where, who, how and under what conditions the information arose. This might well uncover medical, genetic, and environmental factors. Also, why the particular recorder of such information is not likewise "afflicted" with the same behavioral characteristic... such as occluding their vision from seeing the "three" in different subject areas. The same goes for lists which are factual about made-up tales such as Fairy Tales (tells), even if most of them don't contain Fairies and there is no public attempt to provide a more accurate description of the collection. Sentimentality often prejudices us.

Some people do not engage in the creation of a list, yet they participate in a repetitious behavior of producing similar items such as doodling's. If they were to make an effort to collect these expressions, they might find that they do or do not make the same types of patterns as most others. And they may come to the point of questioning why one or another pattern is most often used. As for myself, one of my favorite pastimes used to be to think of as many words as I could with respect to a single letter. While the words were not arranged alphabetically, it was fun trying to find ways in which to get past moments where I reached a stopping point for being unable to think of another word... or else I would attempt to think of as many words as I could of several different letters at a single sitting. For example, I might begin a list for all A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, etc, words, allowing myself the freedom to mix and match letters for larger associations... all the while maintaining a strict observance not to mix the words in the different lists. I used to play a similar game with numbers, albeit venturing off into more complex formulas... some of which I will admit were non-sensical, but they were good for a chuckle.

In making a list of "threes", very often items are first collected by examining topics of interest or at least commonly recited from memory because they are frequently mentioned in one's social setting. Yet, even though the items may be well known to most people, most people do not derive a list of threes, nor any other list of some commonality. They might instead direct, or be influenced to direct their "listing" behavior into beginning a collection of items which may already be collected into personal lists by others. The threes which may occur in one's "social setting" may be just as variable as the setting itself is on a daily basis, or it may be quite static (relatively unchanging); in the sense of a routine in which the same people recite the same expressions or talk about the same topics again and again and again. And yet, most are comforted by the repetition while a few are nauseated by it because for whatever reason, their mind's make a note of it... in other words, make a list of the repetitions.

However, overtly visible structures can belie underlying characteristics, as many a parent witness in a child, or a counselor in a student, or a doctor in a patient's complaints. There are fundamental patterns which underly all behavior, which includes the topics sung by singers, motion picture productions, and television broadcasts. There are underlying themes which occur all the time, with the themes merely played out by different people in different contexts... just like the way businesses, governments and religions are run. Many of these underlying patterns can be seen in the games played as children, such as chase, tag, king of the hill, hide-n-seek, mother-may-I, swing-the-statue, showing off, follow the leader, etc... In a sense, for the most part, human thought takes place in parameters of repetition... making truly new, innovative or original ideas difficult to accept, grasp or even generate since society, (business, politics, religion, etc.,) requires repetitive thinking and initiates ideas which encourage a merry-go-round perspective that conceals an emphasis for maintaining a production-line like mentality because inebriation, in whatever form, assists in keeping one's mind spinning and in a encircling illusion, if not delusion.

Frequently, it is not that people forget a past that makes them repeat it, it's because they never knew of a past occurrence in the first place. And it should be mentioned that even though a word or idea is acknowledged such as "War", this does not mean a knowledge of the word is a knowledge of the event in a first hand, first person experience. In other words, you may know the word "war" and see documentaries of war, but this doesn't mean you know of war in terms of remembering it. While it is true you remember the word and the documentaries, lectures, and books about the subject, this does not mean you remember the actual event. For most people, to be in a war is not because you forgot to remember, it's because you never actually knew in the first place. The same goes for all experiences, such as plagues, fires, avalanches, flooding, wealth, poverty, etc... To which it should be mentioned that even though many know about the Stock Market crash of the 1930's, does this mean most people forget about the knowledge when another crash occurs? The same thing could be asked about divorces, drug usage, alcoholism, crime, high consumer goods prices, etc... Do prices increase producing ill effects because most of us forget what effects they have?

Simply remembering in terms of knowing, is no guarantee of prevention. You can still have a heart attack even if you take all precautions against having one. While your chances might be greatly improved against the occurrence of an event, remembering does not prevent repetition if other factors remain which precipitate the possible occurrence of an event taking place, yet you are not aware of these other factors. The "Phenomena of Threes" is a factor that is being overlooked. You must get past your stupid religious, superstitious and urban-legend interpretations thereof.

The logic you impose on your knowledge in an attempt to insure or prevent an occurrence of an event, is like a math formula that appears complete and provides a definitive answer, but it is actually incomplete because it does not know all the variables for a formula which does incorporate the unknown variables for a problem requiring a solution by way of an equation which may be but the variable in yet a larger unrealized formula. Each person draws up a plan, a schematic or if you prefer, an equation, with respect to the knowledge they can bring to bear upon considerations for adopting a complete formula. The formula is correct with respect to a given set of variables, and may never be recognized for being faulty, because there has been no occurrence of an event which indicates its limitations...

While we find individuals such as the following three examples denoting limitations in mathematics and mathematically-associated quantum mechanics, no one is stating the obvious about limitations in Art, Music, Astrology, Philosophy, Politics, Biology, Religion, Anthropology, Archaeology, Astronomy, Genetics, Military strategy, Epidemics, Medical treatment, Economics, Sports activities, etc...

The inherent limitations, or at least practiced versions thereof, of any subject matter is particularly evident when mounting evidence in another given subject, such as the Threes Phenomena, is off-handedly dismissed by established presumptions used as defining particular values of established perspectives placed on a pedestal meant as an indication of superiority... which is little more than a projection of someone's arrogantly defined ego. The Threes Phenomena list is a type of surveyor's map demarcating boundaries... The "Many" in a recurring cognitive limitation that surfaces again and again and again as a product of attempted adaptive survival in an environment that his headed for a demise and is taking humanity with it.

Initial Posting Date: Friday, March 28, 2014
Updated Posting: Friday, April 25, 2014
HTML (4.01) update: Wednesday, May 29, 2019... 5:25 AM

Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland