Threesology Research Journal
Tripartite Organizational Functionality
(3-ness in Software Design)

(The Study of Threes)

I have worked for companies that, on the first day, I wondered how they remain in business by using such an antiquated software program that I am being taught to learn. In frustrated silence I have sat on many occasions shaking my head at programs that must have been developed by someone that needed a superfluous amount of steps in order to remind themselves of where they were at in the process of compiling the same information for each and every client, customer, and external-to-the-company associate. In short, they were collecting and compiling information according to the dictates of a computer program that could either be significantly streamlined or scrapped altogether.

But not only do employees learn to adapt themselves to a given workplace computer program, so do customers, clients and associates. A given program works for them, though the steps in using the program at its initial debut may have seemed mind -boggling. But they stuck with it, giving in to various reasons supporting a "we need it" premise. And so, however frustrating a computer program may seem to every new employee that has had experience working with truly innovative systems of data collection, compiling and retrieval, longer term employees have become used to the system... making it work for them, despite all the quirks readily available to even the most casual observer.

Software programs alter employees to think in a given way with which they interact with customers, clients and associates, just as does learning a subject such as psychology, sociology, or anthropology. Altering a company's computer programming might well involve altering how employees interact in and out of the office, though the interactions may not be easily identifiable to just anyone. To tell an old and loyal customer that "we don't do that anymore," or "we do it differently now," can be tantamount to lost revenue that the company has become dependent on. Particularly if the primary reason is found to be nothing more than a measure to increase revenue by a small margin that is little more than an excuse to cover-up the real reason of appearances: "Of keeping up with the Joneses of a competitor by adopting new software to give the impression of advanced business practices." Businesses must be sensitive to a customer's needs, some of which may nonetheless be self-defeating to the customer in their long-run, but the customer has nonetheless become habitually reliant on and expects to be treated with respect, despite any business practicing character flaws. Altering a company's software might be interpreted by some customers as a command (and not a polite request) for them to alter direction in midstream by "upgrading" to an untested new idea of how to propel their company into a new era (by way of someone's "engine-uity"), that is being offered as a replacement for a tried and true slow plodding of oar strokes.

Many software designers take only a superficial stock of what impact their ideas may have on a company's pool of employees. Some don't care or even appreciate the fact that the demographics of employees must be included in software design in order for it to work as intended. All they want is for some company to purchase their software so they can have a substantial income while being recognized as some software guru. If their program leads to lost jobs because it streamlines the amount of effort required by a company on any given business day, they may be so callous as to call it progress defined by some unwritten motto akin to such as: "To streamline a business that no longer needs human employees and perhaps even a company owner or the human element with whom the company does business." In fact, by taking this same criteria a bit further, we might as well eliminate the human element with respect to the origination of software development. Additionally, in a like-minded sense, in order to maximize total profit, we might as well have a software program that dispenses with all competition and gets rid of superfluous humans. Imagine a software program that creates a world (business culture, scientific community, religious society, political climate, etc.,) in the image of a 30 year old creator experiencing their own kind of dementia.

However, these programmers don't want to eliminate themselves from the "maximizing profits" equation. They also want some measure of competition, whether real or imagined, in order to interpret themselves as being identifiably significant to that or those used as a model of comparison. They want their computer program to dominate all other programs, or at least be interpreted as supreme in a given niche' of application along with other adolescent drivel. In other words, in many cases, designing a computer program is a microcosmic expression of a macroscopic desire that is not to design language usage in a given context, but instead, to design a usage for the overall parameters of that which it is applied to. (Analogously, its design is for an entire culture and not simply a single individual.) What sociological audacity! Imagine someone not only wanting to impose a made-up language on a given group of people (in this instance a business), but also alter the business to the dictates underlying the language's design. A design which may have exponential counter-parts not fully understood or appreciated beyond one's ego-centricities. Underlying neurotic (-extremes), and socio-pathic or psycho-pathic inclinations are often not as easily recognized in a programmer's software language layout, as are, say the expressions of a serial rapist, racist, mass murderer, war-mongerer, kleptomaniac, dictator, etc...

Some programmers are still caught up in a stick and stone/bone age mentality, while others have "progressed" to some other pre-industrial perspective that we might refer to as an age of (precious) stone, iron, or kite flying during an electrical storm. They are those who are designing games, whether described as a combatant, educational, or entertainment form. Such games frequently deal with dualistic, dichotomous themes commonly organized as the opposite of one to another that we can label oppositional. Many no doubt would argue that portrayals of good/evil, give/take, right/wrong, (or: correct/incorrect), weak/strong, in/out, up/down, ugly/pretty, rich/poor, smart/dumb, fat/skinny, my gang/your gang, kill/be killed, dominant/submissive, guilty/innocent, funny/sad, serious/emotional, tall/short, white collar/blue collar, winner/loser, etc., are fundamental themes that all people "understand."

However, the use of the word "understand" should be exchanged with a word such as "participate", even if some are consciously aware of similarly labeled themes such as positive/negative, yin/yang, male/female, etc... As a dominant mentality, it is that used by criminals. Many Criminologists are aware of it, but not consciously so in terms of grasping such an acknowledgement for purposes of contrast to assist them in their efforts, be it for capture, containment, or re-creation, as some might want to describe rehabilitation; though others might argue that criminals were not properly habilitated in the first place, whereby the "re" in rehabilitate is naively applied.

For those readers not familiar with the "source code" differences between criminals and non-criminals; criminals tend to organize their perceptions of the world in patterns-of-two, like those themes already mentioned, though there are others. While most of us can dichotomise at any given time, most "normal" people also rely on patterns-of-three. For a simple example, a criminal mentality focuses on the Red and Green of a street light, whereas most others also take the yellow light into an equal assessment. Some Criminologists might describe this as a totem pole of moral judgement, because they feel the level (and type of) a person's morality (or lack thereof), determines one's criminality. When a criminal mind exercises a psycho-pathic digression, the pattern-of-two becomes a pattern-of-one made evident by the notion that your are either in or out, but there is no revolving door to membership. It is not a bond made of love, but of control.

Many programmers, whether they consciously acknowledge it or not, think the language of their particular design will create a better order in a given business. (Alternatively stated, "create a better social order in a given community.") Many programmers, without knowing it, want to alter a business' organization by imposing a new language of communication. Whereas the software may be written with a symbolic (coded) language, the day to day overt expressions of the language can alter the way humans interactively communicate and live their personal lives:

  • Did you get my e-mail? (E-mails are sent even if the person works within ten feet.)
  • People "communicate" with their electronic devise by playing games every chance they get, even ignoring those around them.
  • I don't have a computer at home. (In order to get away from electronic-based thinking.)
  • I don't own a cell phone, watch T.V. nor listen to the radio (They hate going in stores in which they are forced to endure such devices).
  • I'm going to vacation in some rural/wilderness setting. (The "get away from it all" perspective.)
  • A person walks by you on the street but says nothing and then calls you ten minutes later to say hello and ask a simple question. (No, I'm not kidding. This very example happened to me.)
  • "All my children are creative", (they know how to play with battery operated toys.)
  • My daughter needs a cell phone so she can learn how to communicate with her friends.
  • All my grade-school children need cellphones so they can feel important and not left out. I may need to contact them or they may need to call me.
  • This is the latest version. I'm the first one to have it.
  • ETC...

Most of us have encounter these or similar instances of someone's life being altered by this or that electronic device. While I'm not arguing the merits of good or bad, I am outlining how mild or dramatic the effects can be on different people.

In some instances, if a software creator (or those footing the bill for the design) can't convince a company of the advantages for adopting their perspective (program), they will want to create one or more scenario's that will "persuade" one or more companies to "see the light". The program thus becomes an anti-virus application with the programmer as the virus. It is an old protectionist racket scam. Some might involve themselves with nefarious acts of sabotage, while others simply wait-and-see if social/business circumstances don't change in order for them to take advantage of. And yes, sex, bribery, deceit, bush-wacking, betrayal, murder, defamation, character assassination, kidnapping, theft, ransom, staged manipulations, espionage, and other acts are not beyond the measures that would readily be adopted by some programmers in order to get one or more companies to "see the error of their ways" and adopt the program "for their own good". Others want partners to carry out the misdeeds, without being implicated themselves. They don't care what happens to one or more others, so long as they come out smelling like a rose. Like so many governments, religions and businesses have done throughout the centuries (including the present); some programmers want to impose their views on others in order to give themselves, at least the illusion, that they are correct in their thinking. Some could careless whether they are judged right or wrong, they just want the richest spoils of all that is available.

Companies must beware that the use of a given software program is the adoption of a language that may not necessarily be appropriate for their particular business culture, even if it promises a maximisation of profits. Many software programs are infested with one or more worms that take time to gestate. The worms are not meant to crash the system, and indeed may provide some needed advantage for day to day work routines. But the worm(s), even when not intended by a malicious designer, can metamorphosize into a colony of creatures not readily identifiable because all appears normal on the surface. It's like having our underlying genetic code altered in insidious, incremental ways that create variations which are not readily observable, and when observed, are labeled a diversification of our species. Thus, the alterations come complete with a language labeling system which increases the viability of the program's continuation and and acceptance of the noted changes/differences, and to not do so becomes viewed as an error in a persons personal language repertoire... an error in "right" thinking, a bias, a prejudice, a less than optimum character trait that is defined as the perspective of someone harboring a conspiracy theory, thus placing them on a social list of those whose views are to be viewed as questionable.

In some instances, the language of a program could be an insidious form of "revolutionary thinking" which undermines the very foundation upon which the business' integrity of survivability has remained intact, but no one recognizes it as such, and those that do get some intellectual hint of such, may be too readily dismissive of such a thought because it is contrary to the established social order in which their employment thrives. They don't want to appear to be pessimistic about something that may be touted as showing promise. In many instances a programmer's sociological, political, religious and overall philosophical views will be expressed in their design. Even if they learn what yours are and espouse them as you might, the underlying truth of their convictions is hidden in the code of their software program. Be very wary that they aren't working for a competitor (knowingly or unknowingly). Usage of a computer program day after day by one's pool of employees alters the way they think. It can be just as radical as learning to read, write, type or use a computer for the first time. People can adapt without even realizing that they are. Computer programming that is applied and frequently used, changes the way people think.

Biology has its DNA triplet coding system, but so does language with its Subject - Object - Verb. Not all geneticists are involved with attempting to rewrite the DNA code for various intentions. Likewise, not all software engineers are involved with attempting to rewrite the DNA code of Language, for various reasons. However, some are intentionally attempting to do so. Some are experimenting just to see what will happen, while others know what can and may happen if the appropriate code is applied in a particular manner in a given context. Some want to design a superior human, others want to design a superior business. Neither have the wisdom nor intelligence to comprehend the full impact of their activities. Activities that may, by way of serendipity, produce either greater gain or greater loss for humanity.

A computer program is a shortcut to altering the way people think. While some adults are fully cognizant of how easily a person's mind can be altered, others are only vaguely aware of how easily they can have their mind's manipulated. Conventional word-of-mouth avenues can also alter a population's mindset, but it can take a longer period. With respect to developing a "higher order" functionality in a program, many programmers seek fundamental structuring patterns that exist, in some manner, with a cross-discipline conventionality. In other words, they may examine the basics of language, biology or genetics from a given philosophical perspective such as logic, or Charles S. Pierce's Triadism, since he covered a wide range of topics in his intellectual pursuits of a fundamental symbolic logic. As such, metaphorically speaking, while some programmers are solely wrestling with trying to define the "over"-all move patterns in a game of chess or checkers colloquially defined as strategy, others are (solely) trying to define the "under"-all fundamental patterns which dictate the overall moves. (And yes, some are trying their hand at working from both ends without realizing they are doing so.) To this end, they identify that both checkers and chess use the triadic (code) structures of Diagonal - Horizontal - Vertical, though some may conjecture that these three are not the basic structure, but are visual elements which are projected from a "deeper" source code. Others may even care to suggest that this deeper code is not THE deepest. For example:

  • While some may view the Diagonal - Horizontal - Vertical structures as fundamental entities; in terms of a single - dual - triple formula, we can conclude (at the very least, consider) that these three make up a singularity that can be referred to as (a) linear arrangement.

  • The "dual" can be formulated from a circularity, though this may not be readily understood by some readers who rely solely on conventional dispositions to navigate realms of unconventional perspectives. In short, the Diagonal, Horizontal and Vertical can be viewed as positions in a circular movement, though some may view this as if by necessity, to require a truncation, and/or omission and/or "regulated" alternation presenting us with a transparency in order to create such a geometric form.

  • However, one must not get caught up in a singular perspective regarding these three based on their position in a written sentence. In other words, while we may place the three in the left to right D - H - V series, let us not restrict them to occurring in this fashion each and every time they are present, whether in thought or otherwise. Viewing it as a sort of DNA scaffolding might be helpful to some, but even this may predispose us towards assuming a static (non-moving) as opposed to a dynamic (moving) appearance for given circumstances. I say "scaffolding" in order to defray the possible use by some where the convention of a "ladder with rungs" analogy is applied, though this analogy may also incline some to visualize a convention not intended nor useful. Such an application may provide an intellectual comfort zone for some, but this may not be appropriate.

  • In terms of the triple form, a triangular convention will suffice for purposes of illustration. Though this form also appears to require a truncation, and/or omission and/or "regulated" alternation of the D - H - V series, with the latter "V" positioning omitted until one takes a step back and applies a holistic eye to the form which then suggests the vertical. This is of course a perspective delineated from the convention of pyramidal designs "pointing" upward.

  • It is likewise necessary to mention that the Linear - Circular - Triangular forms being aligned to represent a single - dual - triple series are taken as basic forms used for the purposes of communicating a simple idea with conventional models, though those who become steeped in a similar perspective might well adopt a different vernacular.

  • An additional supposition suggests the consideration that the D - H - V arrangement, even if it is not THE deepest "code", may nonetheless be an identifiable form existing in other basic formations such as DNA's triplet codon system and atomic structure. While we display a type of circularity (helical) representation in describing DNA, a similarity of form may exist with atoms, beyond mere rotational or vibrational frequencies. Nonetheless, thinking analogously in terms of vortices, the linear D - H - V series would have to be subjected to a type of van der Waal's force so that multiple directional changes could occur. The D - H - V thus becomes obscured by that acting upon it. Taking a script from psychology, the "force" might analogously be described in terms of Fight - Flight - or Fall (into submission). Yet, this then characterizes a type of vessel within which the action takes place. For example, while most people don't think of a tornado occurring within a vessel because it may move in a large swath across a particular geographic area, it's form is the result of events being encapsulated.

In computer programming, one of the underlying fundamentals is to acknowledge that computer language rests on one of the three sub-atomic particles, namely, the Electron. The (one) electron supplies the energy from which the (two) on/off switching portrayals takes place which enables distinctions to be made and elaborated on, thus making it advantageously possible to have an alphabet, innumeration, and other symbol-based references. (The on/off switching is symbolically portrayed with zeros and ones.) To these on/off distinctions are then compounded the (three) choices typically referred to as NOT, AND, OR "gates". ("Gates" refers to where electricity/energy can be stopped or permitted to flow in a given direction.)


  1. You can have this choice, NOT that one.

  2. You can have this choice, AND that one.

  3. You can have this choice, OR that one.

For an interesting discussion concerning the binary "thinking" of computers and the trinary "thinking" of humans:

~ C2sH3s (Computer twos & Human threes)

In a sense, the aforementioned "one, two, three" scenario can be equated with a one, two, three maturational development sequence; whereby in extension, a one, two, three Germ layer development might be cited, though this has already been mentioned above. All of which may give some software developer the hint of a fundamental Triadic code formula. By adopting such, their software might take on the genesis of a biological-like entity which can adapt and evolve and achieve a self-recognizing consciousness, taken either literally or metaphorically. However, malicious code writers are doing likewise. They naively think that by crashing the world's computer systems, chaos will be some sort of ruler with (imagined) prophetic visions of an apocalyptic that they can take credit for as if they were someone special.

Of course there are alternatives which can be added to the foregoing three, all of which constitute what is called Boolean logic. Futuristically speaking, in order to go "beyond" this characterization and usage of logic, computers may well have to be designed with other than an electron's type of energy. Our (dichotomously applied) on/off switching is a mindset that may have its origin in the good/bad, right/wrong, rich/poor, etc., (dualistic) thinking pattern of a past era. However, until we humans either evolve past this mindset or develop a new brand of energy usage applied to whatever computer-like machinery is needed in the future, we must play the hand we are dealt with. Either we create "better thinking" for a computer called software, or we create a computer whose basic functionality permits it to "evolve" into a better thinking apparatus. Stated another way, Microsoft's "Windows 8" is hardly a useful application for an old punch-card apparatus. Reversing this, we might say that punch-card designed machines can not make use of Windows 8 software. Even today, some software is inappropriate for some applications... not only the computer itself, but the context in which the computer is used.

Because of the restrictions inherent in a dualistic "on/off" architecture, software design is predestined with a cognitive limitation that most software designers are not cognizant of because they are trapped in the labyrinth of kaleidoscopic code writing like a child in a fun-house of mirrored distortions. They are unable to see past the dualistic images (for example, where fat becomes skinny, short becomes tall, etc...), in order to find the door which they entered because they do not realize it says "Exit" on its opposite side; but upon the realization of such, they will be able to (though many do not) enter into the previous realm but with a new cognitive perspective. Hence, for those that do, they will have ventured into a new world, unable to return to that from whence they first came. They will have changed. And those that know them well will realize this. The experiences of a new cognitive realization is analogous to an early primate that leaves the old habit of swinging in the trees to begin an upright journey onto a Savannah of foraging explorations. While some are fearful of such a transformation, interpreting it in terms of lost former relationships, a few will take the eventful first step forward.

Some programmers, with or without a degree in education, biology or mathematics, may have recognized that within each of these subjects can be found a fundamental tripartite organizational functionality. From one perspective, since education involves language, we note that all languages in the world are said to have a "tri-modal" structure containing an Object - Subject - Verb, though not necessarily in this order. To this we could add the Period - Question mark - Exclamation point of sentence structure; nouns are Persons - Places - Things; most people hold a pen or pencil with three fingers, etc... With respect to biology which involves genetics, we note that DNA and RNA are said to have triplet coding systems (even though we can alternatively describe them as having 3 to 1 ratio structures). Collagen, the most abundant protein in our bodies is triple-stranded. And as for mathematics, we take one number... then Multiply or Divide or Add or Subtract a second number, to get a third number; not to mention the Sine - Cosine - Tangent of Trigonometry.

With respect to the historical development of numbers, several writers have commented on the three-part "One - Two - Many" sequence, with each being expressive of a cognitive limit at a given time for a given culture. In other words, in a culture's own language equivalent way, they had a word "one" for the quantity 1, which was a limit that was at sometime later breached by the development of a word "two" for the quantity 2, which then became the cognitive limit that at sometime thereafter became superseded by a word "three" for the quantity 3. This developmental process may be a mirror-image replication (transference) of the events by which DNA, RNA, and Proteins evolved, as well as the three-Germ layers known as Endoderm - Mesoderm - Ectoderm. In other words, it is a code, of sorts, that is repeating itself. (The notion of tRNA... "transfer RNA", comes to mind.)

With respect to cognitive limits, the widespread usage of "threes" in various subject areas may be an expression that humanity has again reached a cognitive limitation and we must either (Or/And) evolve intellectually (our software) or physiologically (our hardware). Then again, perhaps the "Not" option will come into play, thus defining the conclusion in this syllogistic inference that humanity will do neither because it is to be replaced by a model with a whole new architectural scaffolding.

The notion of a (tripartite) "fundamental organizational functionality" gives the impression of suggesting diverse applicability, like the triplet codon system of DNA found in all kinds of life forms... or all languages having a fundamental cross-cultural tri-modal similarity... or boldly claiming (human) mathematics is a universal language that intellectually advanced aliens would also know. Whereas it is one thing to apply a notion of universality to things on Earth, we should not be so arrogant as to think our standard of universality is the same throughout the universe. Some alien race may view our mathematics as a picture-window exhibition of a yet deeper level of mathematics available to sentient beings. Our prime number calculations may be as non-sensical to them as counting clouds would be to many of us, despite the insistence of some Hollywood-portrayed science fiction gibberish about beginning a dialog with an alien visitor by way of using Prime numbers as a type of kindergarten show-and-tell form of communication. When compared to advanced aliens, we humans may be as complex as a one-celled helio- or magneto-trophic organism; or the Earth itself is viewed as a single cell and life on Earth as being little more than cellular debris or other waste by-products.

Pointing out a "threes" or triadic usage amongst humans as well as the absence (or near absence) of such amongst some cultures, can help to design software which takes into account these distinctions, as well as intermittancies thereof. If a culture uses triadic forms of phrase making, this recognition helps to identify a mindset of ordering, in at least one respect. As another example, whereas some with a Judeo-Christian mindset may use the Trinity as a dominant focus, others may use the three-part phrase "Home- Sweet- Home", and not even realize they are doing so. If the Russian culture, for example, uses more "three" references than any other culture, software programs should take this into account. Likewise if this or that Asian culture uses patterns-of-two (such as Yin/Yang) more so than some other Asian or non-Asian culture. Philosophically speaking, the usage of various "patterns-of-three" may not be an actual fundamental structure of nature or natural events, but is something, for one reason or another, we humans have adopted. In other words, DNA and RNA may not have triplet codon systems, we only think they do. To view ourselves as being on the third planet from the Sun may be nothing more than a perspective... a particular vantage point due to time and place.

Interestingly, some use the analogy that genetically-defined diseases are viruses or worms written into our genetic code and that certain operating criteria come into effect that initiates what action(s) the worm is to take. Such as growing, in the case of cancer, or hibernating, such as in the case of remission. Along with the physiological effects is introduced corresponding mental effects which may help or hurt the worm's/virus' viability. Indeed, some venture to consider that entire institutions (as well as activities thereof), such as religion, business, academics, sports, love, music, science, mathematics, superstition, witchcraft, technology, society, Democracy, Socialism, (politics) etc,, are all different forms of worms/viruses that can (adaptably) grow, given the right trigger(s). It's not that a particular worm or virus (program) is meant to produce an ill-effect, but the circumstances in which it comes into being determines either its usefulness or hinderance. It's like coming across someone who is better suited to have lived in a past age, or someone else that appears to be better suited for some future age. In either case, they are out of context. One came into being too late and the other came into being too early.

Businesses require information. Business application, sometimes equated with growth, may require multiple divergent forms of information. Being able to gather, store, and retrieve (access) information that may be recognized (or unknown) as relevant, can mean the difference between sinking, swimming or building a craft so that one's energies can be applied more usefully. Try as one might, not every employee gathers and records information the same. Many of us prioritize information differently. Whereas we may be sitting at computers with similar programs, the information typed in may be personalized, to the the extent a person's view of the information recorded as they think it should be. Not all employees have the same level of proficiency. A person's "personalization" of information may be as "small" as an error such as the transposition of a letter, number, word or phrase, so a computer program must take this into account, if such an application is warranted. Without doing so the person's "small" error could result in a large over-sight if a command (fetch) prompt is seeking a specificity, yet only a generality exists. The retrieving pooch may bring back a bone with multiple striations on it when you were asking for the newspaper... or it may bring you the newspaper after it has gnawed on it awhile.

Some computer programs must have considerably more flexibility than others. A programmer that does not have flexibility to the extent of at least recognizing it in themselves or others, may have a difficult time incorporating it into a program. (However, variations of this theme exist as do the definitions of flexibility.) Along with flexibility we might add creativity and originality. Then again, a computer program might very well be developed that has more flexibility, creativity and originality than the programmer. So how could such be possible? By way of serendipity. Whereas serendipity may play a hand in helping us develop a program that seeks out or recognizes creativity or originality, the definitions of such may revolve around inflexible standards. In other words, truth, justice and beauty may have specific definitions to specific people in a given time and place.

Developing a program that could provide us with answers to questions which may not be developed for centuries is of little reward if we of the present are too ignorant to make usage of the information anyway. This would be like primitive man being provided with the information on how to develop and use penicillin, when an understanding of germ theory would have to confront the primitive's notions of evil and evil spirits. Nonetheless, even though we of the present may not be able to make use of all the information we compile, there is nothing wrong in writing programs that can supplement our present desires to accumulate and store information, well beyond our present human capacity to do so and make usage thereof.

yggf (14K)

Sometimes, information is compiled in a one-for-one association such as apple and apple tree. Visually, we see this as words on a single line going from right to left, at least in English. But a qualification of such a statement is in order since the average reader will think such is absurd because it goes against "common" sense: In this context the Tree image is on the right and the words are on the left, though some "common-sense" readers would claim we English-speaking folk write from left to right. In the present instance, some readers will notice the image first before reading the words. Hence, they are "reading" from right to left. As a matter of fact, our eyes may move in several directions while reading. I bring this up because some programmers are thinking in terms of neuro-linguistic processing, with the word "linguistic" being alternatively defined according to the intellectual dispositions of the programmer.)

At other times, a multi-branched tree and root system is used, such as the Yggdrasil (pronounced "Eggdrasil") tree in Norse Mythology. Interestingly enough, it sports a three-root system. The idea of a "three root system" may well be a software (brain) program from which the ideas of a triplet codon (coding) system in DNA, three families of fundamental atomic particles, three basic fingerprint types, etc., had acquired their pristine architectural structure. In other words, it is an underlying schematic by which multiple ideas in various disciplines have arisen with three-part outlines. However, though we describe Yggdrasil with a three-root system, the Norse people may have used some other means of identification. This is like we of the present labeling ancient religious structures as being triadic, a triad, or even a trinity, but the people in ancient times had no language equivalent form of similar description. They, customarily, may not have recognized three singularities as a "triadic" collective. This is important because it helps us to discern a developmental change in perspective. The usage of such a word as "trinity" or "triad" may be like a computer defrag system that is compressing information to make better usage of space limitations.

Many of us use multiple programs when using a computer. Likewise, without knowing it, many of us use multiple programs when using our brain. Brain scans will display only a general area of brain usage during a given task, whereby they, at present, are little more useful than the spilling of coffee grounds to mark a spot. Our brains (often habitually) use different programs, just like many of us use different tools while working on a vehicle, doing plumbing repair, electrical repair, gardening, etc... Each of us has an encyclopedic brain. Some have larger volumes and some may typically use fewer volumes than another. Some people have an extensive knowledge of a given subject, while others may have a sparse memory bank thereof. Some try to primarily rely on only one volume as a sort of Universal Book of Knowledge, thereby intentionally or unconsciously avoiding any encounter with anyone or any situation that might call such a usage into an arguable conversation.

In developing software for a larger application, universal constants are sought, such as the presently recognized cross-discipline triplicity, or if you prefer, triadism. Those who independently recognize the wide-spread usage of "threes", may find themselves committedly overwhelmed by having discovered a "truth". Particularly if they apply the acknowledgment to their own brand of "Triadism" in their chosen application thereof. The more and more they look, they begin to see it "everywhere". And then, at sometime, they begin to wonder why is it that most others overlook the obvious? But no matter, they will use their new-found knowledge to get others interested in their application thereof. One such application is a software program that espouses a triadism, and can support its relevancy based on triadic ideas formulated by others... particularly those similarly involved, in one way or another, with what they do... or at least they can define it as such if the similarity requires the stretching of one's imagination.

Nonetheless, however creative and applicable the program may be, it may not be suitable for your specific business needs. It may be suitable for your personal needs, but the programmer many not be willing to sell, rent or lease it for less than what many people would call "not in their budget". Such programs already exist, but may never reach a large audience because the developer maintains the idea that "sooner or later" a large company will recognize its value and would pay any price to have it. They may be wrong, but there is no way to convince them of that. Like a starving musician, artist or poet who thinks that if they suffer hard and long enough, they will be "discovered"... their talent, their genius, their hard work will finally reach the semblance of an adequate (to their ego) payday... only to fade away into obscurity and have their ideas re-discovered at some future time when their software (in some form) may be applicable in a given business climate, yet they are no longer around to assist in further development, because they remain hung-up on some past ideal.

Other programs have relied on correlational approaches such as an apple, orange and tomato are fruits. Yet, some people are steadfast in their belief that a tomato is a vegetable, like green chili, which also is a fruit. (With "fruit" being defined as having seeds.) If we were to use a prompt such as "something to eat", we might be overwhelmed since it may include the foodstuffs of cultures whose palates run far afield from our our customary interests. While other programs may use correlational approaches, to do so may invite claims of nonsense since associations of sound may involve what a psychiatrist would call a "clang association", and I don't necessarily mean it always rhymes in any conventional sense. The person making the association may be using an obscured detail to "recognize" a similarity. Hence, the usage of a program with a correlational parameter will at sometime have to associate with an overall (conventional) definition in order to be used by multiple users. While there is nothing wrong with developing a program for a specific participating audience, a greater applicability for the general public must follow the old rule-of-thumb that newspapers for the general public are to be written on a Jr. High school level. Even though the acumen and writing efforts of some journalists are well beyond this level.

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