Threesology Research Journal: The Standard Cognitive Model 32
The Standard Mental Model
(aka: The Standard Cognitive Model)

Flag Counter
Progressive Thinkers as of 5/8/2020

Language Narrative Series
Preface 1 Preface 2 Preface 3
Prologue 1 Prologue 2 Prologue 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
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

When a theme of "three" is referenced as a frequent recurrence in Fairytales such as the Three bears, Three little pigs and the Three Fiddlers, some of us may make a passing reference to an additional character such as Goldilocks, the Wolf, and Old King Cole. Hence, in each of these cases we find what can be referred to as a 3 -to- 1 ratio. It is a pattern not typically referenced by those who study and teach children's literature. Nor is it a pattern correlated with ideas to be found in other subjects. For example, one might describe the 3 phases (dawn-noon-dusk) with the 1 Sun. Or the three phases of matter (solids- liquids- gases) contrasted to the plasma state. Or the three engines in one space shuttle. Or the advertisement of buying three tires and getting 1 free. Or the 3 persons (Father- Son- Spirit) in 1 godhead otherwise known as the trinity. And if we include a reference to the development of counting by humans to the extent we note that the phrase "one- two- many" can be used to describe the rudimentary attempts of humans to devise a counting scheme, then the word "many" can be viewed not only referencing all numbers beyond "2", but as a specificity for the quantity three. From this interpretation we can symbolically view the phrase "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one), as another type of "3- to- 1" ratio expression. In other words, the use of such a ratio appears to be a recurring theme of cognitive activity. but only if you take the time to review additional examples of this ratio occurring elsewhere: Three to One ratios, page 1. If you don't look outside the arena of Fairytales, you will not come to realize the pattern as a recurring mental activity that can be expressed in multiple ways. However, it is of value to note that both numbers and language are rudimentary expressions of a rudimentary form of cognitive activity. Human physiology acts as a shore line, clothes line, fishing line, tether, leash, constraint, and linked chain enslavement.

Some readers may no doubt have come to acknowledge the presence of pairs as a recurring theme as well. In fact, Aesop;s fables are an expression of a two-patterned (dichotomous) mind set. Hence, we see a pattern of 2, of 3 and the 3- to- 1 ratio. Altogether we can see a number sequence, where the 3-to-1 might be interpreted as a functional dot-to-dot game seen by some as being a Constellation), and also labeling such perceptions as being reflective of an assumed god's message to be interpreted by those who declare themselves an authority solely responsible for interpreting the supposed message(s) of an assumed god (along with getting others to support their claim); is reflected in the usage of the number seven in multiple religious contexts... and yet if we were to make a quantitative assessment of the 7, 3 and other number references being used in religious texts, the dominance of one number over another number may merely indicate the age of the content... in that as we move further from the past to the present, the number 3 becomes more prominent, though one must be appreciative of transitional states of cognitive expression between different number pattern uses.

For example, the New testament is claimed by some to have four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), yet analysts make a three to one ratio distinction with the idea of three synoptic and 1 idiosyncratic. Where three of them (Matt., Mark, Luke) are closely aligned in content to one another, while one (John) is not. Hence, do we count the grouping as a four, or as a 3- 1 ratio? And again, when some claim there are four horsemen to the Apocalypse, we can see that another 3- 1 ratio exists in the idea that three of them represent a viability of life, while the so-called forth called Death, does not. Are we thus paying witness to a recurring cognitive theme occurring in a religious context, similar to the same pattern being found in other subjects such as DNA and RNA which are said to have four nucleotides, yet both share the same three (adenine, cytosine, guanine), while DNA has the one Thymine and RNA has the one Uracil. Indeed, it is the same underlying cognitive pattern occurring in different contexts related to an overfly conserved number line of cognitive activity which expresses a Conservation of Number, and may thus be viewed in terms of an environmentally enforced activity for survival purposes under incrementally deterioration planetary, solar system and galactic deteriorations... requiring greater feats of rationalization as resources become more scarce... because humanity refuses to combine all its resources and efforts to remove itself from a Mother Earth whose umbilical cord must be severed... so that humanity can truly grow up and begin its journey towards a more mature existence away from its womb and its refusal to ween itself.

Another aspect of Fairy tales is to notice that enumeration of ideas appears to be used as an unrealized expression of origination. Whereas on the one hand the story of the Pied Piper may not provide any distinct clarification of quantity of characters including the number and type of vermin (other than saying they are rats), other variations from different areas and eras may well include some differentiation such as the Piper using three notes without further specificity of which notes. While the distinction of 1 piper and 1 or 3 children may be found in different tellings of the tale, either the location of origination of such tales or the origin of the person making the variation may not be taken into account when one is compiling different variations and noting that some versions include numerical variables (and geometric variables which I will not go into), while other versions appear to be wholly absent of any numerical distinction. Whereas a version may speak of a given month, given place, and given group of town officials along with a piper, no numerical distinctions are obvious. As if the teller of the tale did not have either a conscious or unconscious inclination to use values of distinct enumeration.

The usage of numbers can be a referenced naming convention in some instances, even if no number is specified except by way of a quantity. For example, the further we go back into time one might consider the very real possibility that a person was eventually identified with a word, which may have been nothing other than some specific grunt by early humans. The grunt may or may not have been accompanied by one or more gestures or even social wares such as a spear, club or tree/bush. In any event, as language developed, one might easily assume that vocalization eventually reached a point of more formative articulation that we call words, though those in the past may or may not have referenced the act of vocalization with a specifically assigned word and/or symbol. While religion has referenced "the word" within its contextual appropriation of a presumed god with specific interests to themselves, one can think of "word" in the context of language development in general. Taken as such, the three-patterned Biblical phrase "In the Beginning was the word, the word was with god, and the word was a god," attests to the importance how the development of language and its usage were viewed. Indeed, singers and speakers with a particular ability of articulation can sway audiences to do or not do certain activities. Yet, did the use of enumeration occur before, after or during the development of language? When an infant babbles, as infants do the world over, do they babble in terms of enumeration? If we count the patterns of babbled utterances, are we viewing a brain that is exercising an ability to count in particular forms of enumeration? Just as a cricket or bird or frog may make sounds interpreted by use as a pattern which we can further enumerate... do we claim they are engaging in some recognized or unrecognized counting meter? If we hear a crow caw three times or a dog successively bark 3 then 4 then 5 times... do they do so consciously or unconsciously based on some underlying cognitive activity representing some basic brain enformulation... or are we humans simply reading a preferential pattern into other life forms?

Does a plant know it is using a pattern which humans label as the Fibonacci sequence? Is this "knowing" best referenced not as an instinct, but by some other specific-to-plants physiological characteristic which, on a plant scale, is equivalent to knowing on a human scale, even if humans are not yet capable of detecting nor understanding a plant's type of knowledge and pattern(s) thereof? If plants, insects and other life forms do have some relative sense of enumeration... of number, of quantity, then Mathematics may not be the only form of expression which utilizes enumeration, if even on a crude level. Hence, let us say that all forms of human activity are expressions of enumeration, even if a particular observer does not know the language or understands the symbols being used. Indeed, if we can say this of counting, can we not also say this of developing equations of calculation such as describing a person's behavior as being geometric in expression such as a dancer, or algebraic by way of analogical and metaphorical "thinking out loud" ruminations, or having a calculus... though someone might describe their behavior as neurotic, psychotic, delusional, socially removed, pefectionistic, nit picking, strange, convoluted, etc...? Without the use of pen and paper or chalkboard to write down one's behavioral inclinations, the otherwise calculus they are using might well be perceived as a tangled weave of overlapping ideas occurring too close in proximity to one another or the black hole of an orb spider web.

If one would imagine Fairy tales exhibiting an underlying calculus of overall human cognitive behavior, such a realization is made difficult when there has been little effort to create the distinction of a simple number line of expression. While different counts of characters have take place, noting for example character groupings can take place by referencing repetition of species, (i.e. 3 bears, 3 pigs, 3 Billy goats), or a gender (i.e. 3 human sisters: Cinderella, Anastasia, Drizella), or occupation (7 dwarves with specific tools going and coming from work, as well as 3 fiddler musicians), or familial relationship (i.e. sister and brother: Hansel and Gretal), etc.; the overall count in relationship to an expressed cognitive pattern has not been entertained as a relevant course of consideration. No one is looking for an overall realization of a cognitive expression of pattern being expressed by enumeration, since many people do not take Fairy tales as a serious resource for understanding basic human cognitive patterning in this subject's context to be included with a survey of other subjects. Nor are the recurring patterns found in mythology. And yet, if one did not know of particle physics and someone described to them the recurring theme of threes, they might otherwise think it to be a Fairy tale, Myth or three-patterned joke.

Indeed, if one were a sentient life form on another planet or living on some platform or space ship that was not placed in some third planetary position and they were told about a species called humans who lived on a third planet irradiated by a Sun with three phases (dawn- noon- dusk) with a three-patterned physiology (List of threes in human anatomy) by way of a three-trimester birthing process involving three Germ layers (Ectoderm- Mesoderm- Endoderm) and a triplet genetic code sometimes under a three-patterned government (Legislative- Executive- Judicial) and perhaps a three-patterned religious orientation (Trinity in Christianity, Brahma- Vishnu- Siva in Hinduism) and a three-patterned education system (primary/elementary, secondary/high school, University... Bachelor's, Master's, Ph.D)... all of which is presently taking place in the shadow of a possible third world war where three mass-destruction weapons are being manufactured and kept— called nuclear, chemical, and biological... with other day-to-day three-patterned exercises of cognitive activity; what would they think of such a species other than to consider it to be a myth or even fairy tale.

It has been said that jokes often come in patterns-of-three with the third refrain as the punch line. If this is the case and human existence is a joke this might be qualified by the fact humanity is on the 3rd planet (if we count from the Sun outward), or on the 7th planet if we count from Pluto in ward... though not everyone includes Pluto as a planet.

Transitioning states of Cognition

The idea of ideas illustrating transitioning states of cognitive activity is not being discussed as a typical consideration amongst those interested in developing some model of a cognitive standard. Even though we see transitioning states of matter such as is described by the solid- liquid- gas phases of matter, this commonality of occurrence is not automatically applied as an analogy to behavioral processes of thinking. Though psychology references such ideas as Bipolar and the Ambivalence (Schizophrenic) states of thinking processes typically aligned with some notion of abnormality; all of us in reflection may well note that we sometimes waver in our non-emotional thoughts and those which are emotional to which we attached the notion of feelings to. But, at present, I am more interested in discussing those points of discussion which describe the occurrence of transitioning thoughts that a particular author may not consider to be some illustrative transitioning state.

3 transitioning phases of matter

For example, let us take the occasion of some philosopher speaking about the idea that duality plays the most prominent role in all conceptualizations. And yet, they do not speak of duality as having arisen from one or more singularities terms Monality... in the language of philosophy. While we on Earth may well speak of two dualities in concert as a four-directions concept, it is in fact a transitionally arrived at notion. It didn't arrive into consciousness as a singular entity... unless we want to argue that some individuals have a brain which creates accumulations of ideas into singular concepts without having to proceed through stages of development... as one might suppose a mutation can occur by way of Gould's idea of Punctuated Equilibrium, which is an idea that I think arose due to his recurring interest in watching baseball games where actionable events can occur seemingly "out of nowhere" or unexpectedly, such as someone not known for making a homerun, surprises everyone by doing just that. Gould's biologically-based philosophical ideas suggest to me how influenced he was by sports events, where long periods of inaction... of routine activity (as take place in baseball), enables one to drift off into periods of museful thinking, unaware how some external event may influence considerations.

While some historians have made reference to the idea of the double-faced Janus figure associated with some concept of past and future, they may not speak of how the idea came to be created or that there is an absence in ancient thoughts to thinking about adding a third face representing the present. In fairness, there may be not evidence to suggest how the idea came into being and that further considerations did not make it into the mindset of a sculptor. We cannot rely on artists as the main source from which prominent ideas have been formulated, since neither artists (nor mathematicians for that matter) may be so inclined with their particular brand of creativity.

While we may come across an idea suggesting some definitive perspective of a given idea, it is appropriate that we consider such an idea as possibly being a point of transition for a later idea which may arise. Like some old view that is "tweaked" into a form that suits a purpose the originator of the initial idea had no foreknowledge of as to the extent their idea might be used. Many of us realize this as a possibility... sometimes seen when a person makes an interpretation out of a poem that the person who wrote the poem did not think of, and might even make them angry that someone else can have a deeper insight than they did about a given event. In any event, transitioning is a very real activity taking place in the brain activity of humans, similar to the aging process... though not always so incrementally. And once again let me speak to the idea held by some that duality is the primary model of thinking humans tend to think in, even though various ideas are generated by this assumed process which apparently exhibit non-duality. Unless we are to describe all non-dualities as embellishments of duality, we need to address non-duality, particularly when duality is thought of as a transitioned state of occurrence beyond, next to, or out of a singularity... as if singularity split in two like some cell divisioning event.

If dualities are embellished singularities, just as one might describe the "2" having arisen by adding a "1" to a "1"; do we describe a "3" as an embellished duality or an embellished singularity, or both? If transitioning of thought processing is a standard cognitive activity, why are we so inclined to think of our ideas as having some definitive importance, though in a given time period in a given situation a given idea may well be important... at least more valuable than other ideas being generated in close proximity which result in the accomplishment of a desired task at a given moment for a given problem? So too must we take into consideration our search for some definitive origin as a transitional or approximate truth, as opposed to its obverse which might be described as some ultimate achievement. Yet, if there is no chance of reaching an ultimate truth, are we then describing a model of thinking which is based on looking for or are sensitive to the possible existence of transitional states instead of positioning themselves in a perspective determined to accept one or another idea as being definitive in all cases... and not just a period of time where history is a record of transitional states of events?

Even though we may state that an event in history did occur (such as a military battle, plague, geological upheaval, biological evolution), such did occur as part of a transitional stage of multiple events. And whether we use the terms "flux, temporality, middle way, happy medium, centeredness, etc..." the same or similar notion of "transition" is being attended to from different vantage points and being used as if it were a definitive... non-transitional formulation of events in nature.

While the view that "all things are in flux" may be some person's personal philosophy, they use it as some sort of definitive without providing any further explanation or application to a larger perspective to be shared with others. They may never take the time to convey their ideas into a more (attempted) permanent form such as a graphic representation as some people do by way of a stage play or movie, or literary format such as a song, poem or textbook or even symbolic representation such as a math equation. However, even though you think you may have found some useful idea, it may not be the answer to the question(s) being posed by another. For example, though I am interested in the "threes phenomena" to the extent I actively seek out examples in different subjects, someone else may be just as interested in identifying twos, sevens, or some other enumerated pattern. Yet, such interests are not being generated by everyone... only a very small percentage of people. If there was money attached to such a task, or the ability to achieve some economic, social, government, religious or academic post, there might well be many more interested in such phenomena. But not because it is an interest generated by one's personal orientation where the study of such is the reward, but by some externally-motivated mode of acquiring some ulterior motive that is the main reason. And even though the site is generously sponsored by a benefactor whom I have never met nor know anything about, their support came long after I had already begun the pursuit of the threes phenomena as a serious personal interest.

While some examples of the "threes" formula are no doubt due to mimicry of some other threes idea in numerical style and/or similarity of content, we can not describe these examples as embellished dichotomies in and of themselves. They are copies of what might be a copy of yet another copy of yet another copy of some threes idea whose origin did spring from some embellishment of a dichotomy that itself may be the embellishment of a monad... or singularity. To think that one has created an idea that will never be improved upon might well be termed an egotism or arrogance. If one creates an idea that they themselves can not improve on, much less others, then we either have a definitive idea for a given circumstance in a given time period, or/and that we are paying witness to the expression of someone having a brain that has reached its ultimate model of realization and definitive means of illustration.

A person may well have a definitive answer or model of an idea for a given time, place and situation; but the overall time, place and situation may itself be in a transitional state of existence which is at present in an incremental state of change which is relatively imperceptible to those sharing the same relative existence. The rise and fall of civilizations and their respective coinage is an example, since some appear to last for centuries while others are shorter lived and exist in a state of flexible flexibility and not rigid flexibility as the current models of government and religion (as well as Swiss bank) practice due to the flexible rigidity used to support their governing principles. All current models of government, business and religion are heading towards an obsolescence because they are engaged in practices of rigidity in their assumed flexibilities of preparedness for any condition or circumstance history has warranted them to consider. While each of them have in place those who are attentively watching trends in their respective venues of interest, none of them are taking into consideration the cognitive patterns underlying those trends. They are more interested in a fishing expedition approach interested in sociability, then a categorized fishing tackle assessment, where far too many fishing tackle boxes are expressions of kitchen drawer accommodations of miscellaneous wares.

One such example is the reliance on Unicameral and Bicameral models of Legislative processes, and the typical dichotomization of political events which may or may not be trichotomized or subjected to some form of multiplicity by some adventurous News reporter. Such conditions are like the fluidic state of water which excludes solidification and expresses some gaseous stage of developmental excursiveness. Such a condition does not express growth, but a reversal towards repeating repetition at a pace which suggests progress because too many are blinded and made nauseous by the circumstances which prevail and arise out of the stench mistakenly thought to be the transition to a higher state of being. It is repetitive stagnation which has lashed onto an increased detrimentation of socialized activity for which all are forced to adapt to... like those living along the corridor called tornado alley, who do move and are not deliberately assisted in moving by the government who has the means to help those people who want assistance, and deny assistance to those who continue to live their lives under circumstances akin to some gaming or Russian roulette philosophy which affects others such as by way of tax dollars used for community cleanup, disaster resources, and insurance premium costs.

When Nature apparently expresses itself in ways which to humans resemble a named pattern to which ascribe the symbol "3" to, is this because Nature has moved beyond duality or is it expressing an embellished dichotomy that is an embellished Monality? Take for example the following illustrated list of threes initially offered by Mark Mahon on a blog site entitled Nature Loves the Number Three, upon which I added some other examples:

Examples of 3s in Nature

With the dominant pattern of Binary star systems being discussed by Astronomers, one would think that life (as we know it) would have occurred in a binary star system, and life would be on the second instead of the 3rd planet (or 7th planet if you count from Pluto inward). Indeed, why aren't atomic particles configured in binary arrangements instead of trinary ones? Is nature engaging in embellished dualities that we humans insist upon calling triplicities, or have we humans overlooked a developmental trend of possibility... if not probability governing all of life... which is to move beyond duality, seeing as how the old ideas of particle physics used to emphasize a dual nature and is retained in the notion of the wavical, supposedly verified by the use of a double slit experiment?

Then again, if we pay witness to those who assert that duality is the main and only true configuration of human thought processing and physiological perception, where variation is merely a means of distinguishing transitional states between a dichotomous inclination, then why do humans think they are thinking otherwise. Of what benefit is it to think in trichotomization or plurality or singularity, of duality is the only pattern we should concern ourselves with, because it assumedly illustrates all of nature? If all life is the product of duality, then does duality incorporate a reconciliation of opposition, thereby producing a happy medium one might describe as warmth, peace or equilibrium... or are these illusions... just expressed mediocrities of duality that has the capacity to express either great disruption or calmness? Yet, is not some semblance of a middle ground between two possible extremes to be considered a third position or some other positional state where personal flavoring might well attend to some preference and label it with some alternative designation such as polynomial, or other "many, much, heap, bunch" relevance?

Did duality merely erupt into existence as a singular entity or did it develop out of one or two singularities? And if there is no growth beyond duality, no triplicity or polynicity, is the usage of such designations the activity of a biological (brain) structure which is incapable of or not ready to accommodate itself to a state of existence where duality is first and foremost? Yet, how are we to recognize duality if we are too close to it? Can duality recognize itself or must it have a means to acknowledge itself from a non-dual position? Does duality incorporate non-duality just as one might say of singularity incorporating non-singularity and triplicity incorporating non-triplicity, etc..., so that it represents a viable means beyond itself? If duality is absolute, then why create non-absoluteness in biology? Why does the presumed perfection of duality allow for non-perfection? If duality is a state of equally matched opposition, then a steady-state situation would assumedly arise. And if one argues for the existence of a duality as a state of equal complementarity, then we again have the situation where a steady-state should be evident. We must therefore consider that duality is not an expression of equality, but is itself an expression of a transitional staging event which has the capacity for change, but does not necessarily engage in such as a preference or preeminent purposefulness that one might describe as fate.

While some moments of transitions may well follow a course that can be potted as a system of succession stated as a law of Nature, other occasions of the same phenomena may not be so accommodating to human senses, thereby causing some state of alarm for those who are anxiously dependent on regularity for securing themselves in a relative position of sanity. Events which have taken place for thousands, if not millions or billions of years need not likewise occur in all situations nor vantage points. Change can itself change just as it might well not change. For example, to encounter a person who apparently does not age like others we have seen, may well be cause for concern or amazement... or even those with a disposition to try and undermine such a person's health out of jealousy or an unrealized underlying malice to anything which does not reflect one's own standards of usualness, regularity, commonality and therefore normalcy and rightness.

How does one recognize one condition if there is nothing but itself to compare it to? Unless we are speaking of perfection as being imperfection as well. If one has no sense of enumeration because there is only the one to take into consideration such that perfection is the all and only, then how does a perfect being described as god create imperfection? This of course is a similar philosophical consideration noted as existence supposedly arising out of non-existence and culminating in the dichotomous view that nothing can be created nor destroyed. All of which leads to the consideration of that which is being described as a duality is a false impression better understood as but a misnamed singular idea or a position seen from a vantage point that is more than two... such as three, but unable to allow one to get stuck in such muck for very long, because they have made provisions for themselves before wading in such a bog that others get entrapped in and call out to others to join them, so they will not be alone... unable to allow themselves to pull themselves out or let others assist them in so doing. They do not want to think in terms of transitioning from a cognitive position to which they have carved out a niche' of rationalized comfort and protection for thinking otherwise. They prefer to be tethered from all sides, all angles to the predicament they comfortably wallow in. I prefer and rescue.

Since early childhood I have had an interest in numbers. Yet I never had an instructor in those very early formative years who expressed an interest in making correlations of events in Nature with numbers and suggesting the repetition of a pattern as a mystery needing to be solved. Such an impetus required self-generation that has developed over many decades. Fortunately I was not academically trained to focus my energies and interests along a singular path, which has allowed me to gather more examples from divergent sources and not be inclined to interpret a suggested result in some conventional manner as a prerequisite to an assumed mastery of a given subject's field of inquiry. In other words, for example, I don't have to interpret number patterns from different cultures with typical cultural anthropology leanings of interpretation which lead along a course of creating a position where further research in the same area leads to the same results of generalized mootedness. Now don't get me wrong since I have learned quite a bit from those in Anthropology who have pursued an interest in the identification of enumeration used by different cultures which are generally then collectified and claimed that all cultures have a number pattern preference. Yet, this is about as far as the research goes in answering the question of why certain numbers are used by different cultures as being representative of cognitive preferences.

Some people who attempt to think of the cultural numbers circumstance beyond the conventions of answers being submitted by otherwise well-intentioned researchers, generally reach a point in which they arrive at the typical philosophical venue of dichotomization, in which the psychological debate of Nature/Nurture arises. And while some come to itemize the number preferences of different cultures, they fail to take this process of itemization to the next step which is to acknowledge that when we take into account all the number preferences, the totally represents but a small handful of numbers which could be used if humanity took advantage of the infinity of numbers at its disposal. It matters not that you have noticed one culture likes the number four, and another likes the number seven, and again another culture which prefers the number two, and still another likes the number three, etc... The fact remains that when you put all the numbers together and create a graph, you will find the graph displaying the dominant usage of small (typically singular) numbers. While I have not created such a graph to provide an illustration, I have created a mental one as I have read different accounts of cultural number preferences.. as no doubt others in their own way.

What you will not find in past and current anthropology literature is a discussion concerning the concept of a "Conservation of Number" being used by humanity. This is easily seen when we take stock of the different bases used by humans in their number systems. While Mathematics' historians will speak of different bases such as 10, 12 and 60 as if to imply some greatness of human intellect by displaying such a diversity of thought suggesting a far reaching acumen; they fail to recognize and express the realization that there is a severe limitation as to the type of bases humanity has used... as if it were some type of geometric akin to a baseball game diamond that some readers have no doubt thought to exam sports as crude expressions of an overall cosmic impression which human physiology can only grasp by way of fragmentation called different sports genres... and no one yet has been able to comprehensively combine all the sports and games into an amalgamation illustrating a road map or dot-to-dot pictograph leading to a greater understanding of what the universe is expressing, but human physiology is too immature, too crude, too unevolved, too caught up in religious, political and commercial nonsense and other pseudo-cosmological neo-cultural (new age) themes to appreciate what we of today may describe as a cryptic message from a supposed god or creator or the Universe's origination.

Whereas some people advocate the idea that "numbers don't lie" and to "check the math" as if numbers and overall mathematics is to be believed beyond question like so many advocates of their respective religious belief, the fact is that numbers and Mathematics do lie in the hands of those who want to use such tools to convince others of an erroneous representation. So too is the idea used by several motion picture script writers that human mathematics is so great, so refined, so truthful, that any and all sentient beings in the Universe would know it and be able to use it as a Universal language of communication or as is sometimes referred to... a Lingua Franca. This is absolute arrogance and ignorance on the part of humans to think such nonsense. What a bunch of egotistical crap... to put it mildly. When it is not even widely recognized that Mathematics has an underlying foundation of dichotomies similar to that organizational methodology used in the old yin/yang philosophy; how so very stupid it is for anyone to suggest human mathematics is to be Universally understood when humanity itself does not understand it. When some Mathematicians writes about the unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the Sciences, this is a telling point of how ignorant humanity actually is because it is a reliance on an underlying standard of dichotomization that humanity requires its overall sociality to comply with, just so such a mathematics is effective because humanity has invested so much of itself in such a subject as attested by its dominant presence in Universities and other centers of teaching children as they enter school... like some necessitated self- fulfilled prophesy.

A dedicated cultural anthropologist teaching different classes at a University may not describe the activity of Mathematics as a "cultural number", because ideas are not typically viewed as repositories of a given number as is recognized with a culture describes a three-part organization of Heaven-Purgatory-Hell, or a four directions (North-South-East-West), or three tasks (quests) to be performed as a ritual marking one's transition from adolescence to adulthood. And yet, if one attempts to look closely at Mathematics, it must be done in contrast to other life-serving philosophies such as the old yin/yang model, which itself engages in a camouflaging technique of its usage of a preference for the number 2 associated with an orientation towards the binary nature of sexuality (typically described as male/female). Whereas Mathematics does not have a readily perceivable orientation towards sexuality, it does nonetheless exhibit a high usage of dichotomies, suggesting that the human brain had developed an alternative means of describing a binary formula differentiated by an East (Asian) and West (European) cultural adaptation.

And though I have previously described a small sampling of the yin-yang and mathematics binary couplings, let me do so again so that the reader will have a better grasp of what I'm describing, though they may be all too familiar with both, just not in the way I am presenting them as a cultural number reference:

Patterns-of-two expressed in different conceptualizations.

While we may describe the yin/yang and mathematics as separate ideas, they may actually be representations of the same underlying cognitive mapping technique developed in different cultures during different time periods. Whereas the evolution of the human brain may well have matured earlier in the Chinese culture, the same type of brain maturation taking place in a different culture in a different time period would be much like bringing up a Neanderthal child in a time period when ideas had progressed to a certain stage of development and then subjecting the same child to a later time period in which ideas had progressed to a later stage of development. Or one might say take a present day child and subject them to different eras of history and make note of how the same brain makes use of the then occurring information with which to process their circumstances. Likewise, if we were to take a child from some ancient Chinese time period and bring them up in the current era, would their brain process information according to the standards relevant to the ancient time period, or to the present day period? If there is a difference, is their a subtle difference or a marked difference we of today have not yet thought about enough to create a means to detect different processing abilities in terms of basic patterns of enumeration? Are more Chinese children better at Math because they have a different type of schooling, and/or a brain with a longer history of using dichotomies, whereas mathematics requires an ability to utilize a dichotomization of thought processing? What then of those whose brains are exercising an unrealized transition towards utilizing trichotomization... of which the present model of Mathematics is deficient in... but attempts to practice by way of Boolean Algebra's And-Or-Not philosophy, the Pythagorean theorem, and Trigonometry... just as a philosophy based on duality attempts to venture into by playing with three-patterned syllogisms (that I call "silly-gisms")?

The same attempted transposition in trichotomous thinking by ancient Chinese can be seen in the philosophy if the I-Ching with its proposed "Trigrams" which I have previously described as being embellished Bigrams or Byads. Such an exercise is quickly seen when one makes note of the fact that the dual idea of sexuality is carried over into the later philosophy and illustrated in the stick or line configurations of the triadic groupings where a single line references the male penis and the dual line references the female vagina. There is no three-line configuration, only a repeat of the single or double line configuration. Hence, the so-called triads are embellished biads. The act of embellishing dichotomies is a frequent exercise seen also in Western philosophy such as in the configuration of Major Premise- Minor Premise- Conclusion. The Major and Minor are an obvious pattern-of-two with the concept of the Conclusion as a singularity, despite would-be arguments that the overall structure is a pattern-of-three or that the conclusion is the value of the combined two. Such argument only reinforce the notion of an existing embellished dichotomy.

Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, 14th March 2020... 6:11 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this ): 1st March 2022... 6:04 AM
Updated Posting:Thursday, 10th November 2022... 7:49 AM, AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.