Threesology Research Journal: Trinary Structuralism

Trinary Structuralism

Flag Counter
Progressive Thinkers as of 1/30/2023

In establishing the case for developing a "Trinary Structuralism" in contrast to a "Binary Structuralism", whether it is an idea still be used as an Anthropological orientation of study or not, it is of need to point out some flaws in the former area of research and in particular, let us make note of the fact that no one has brought to the fore the reality of existing "three-patterned" ideas which existed when the idea of a "Binary-opposition" Structuralism was being developed by Claude Lévi-Strauss in the early to middle part of the 20th century (1930s,40s, 50s) based on the ideas of others from different disciplines including his own, which was Anthropology.

It is rather astonishing that, even today, there is no widespread realization of how prevalent three-patterned ideas exist, and should have been brought to the fore as an argument not necessarily against the use of a binary formula in an Anthropological structuralism, but that it is not the only basic cognitive pattern effecting an influence on individual and group behavior. There is no one, except myself, leading the charge for recognizing not only the existence of a "three" fundamental pattern, but that it has applicable use in the theoretical disciplines of every single orientation. While there are others aware of the phenomena, they are not advancing the recognition thereof as a necessary inclusion as a basic item of consideration. If you go up to any main or major researcher in their field, they may or may not have some recognition of a "threes" prevalence, though they may have some notion of a underlying Binary pattern referenced by the old yin/yang ideology.

On the one hand a professional will say they are looking for fundamentals, but on the other hand have little to no comprehension of the use of basic enumeration which may have well pre-dated the usage of a socially formalized language... by way of symbols, words, or patterning. Instead, very often, I find those who are more interested in putting up a defense to conceal their ignorance of this very fundamental aspect of human cognitive activity. Some are totally oblivious of such fundamental patterning! They're not interested in actual fundamentals, but those items being described by others as fundamentals so that they can participate in what amounts to be a type of intellectual social game presently in vogue. If mathematicians did this, we would have structures falling apart on us. In other words, the so-called "theories of fundamental criteris" being expoused by so very many disciplines are contributing to the very mess they might claim they want to solve! They are creating equations made of ideas which are not fundamental expressions! They don't get it. The don't see it. Because they forgot how to count. They can't count 1- 2- 3. Instead, they focus on some compoundedness which, when added to the compoundedness of other ideas, creates a complexity that they investigate, but can't see they are the one's digging the very holes they are researching to find out who created the holes... all the while holding the very picks, shovels and blueprints in their hands!

In as much as I don't actually care for Western religions or Eastern philosophies, I must give them credit for insisting that their advocates and adherents in searching for fundamentals, and make an effort to orient believers towards basic cognitive practices serving to remain focused on congruent simplicities such as the one (oneness, monad, singularity), the two (dyad, duality or non-duality), the three (triad, trinity, triune), the many (much, more, plenty, plurality, omni-), the 3 in/as/from 1... [which might be perceived as geometric forms by those attempting to use artificial inducements... such as an hallucinogen, to achieve a closer connection with some personal notion of supremacy.] While I think it is marvelous they pursue actual fundamentals of existence (instead of pretending like so many theorists in different disciplines do), I don't really care for their ceremonialized belief practices and what I believe to be ludicrous notions of obtaining a transcendence or transcendental experience that may alternatively be labeled a spiritual or enlightened formalization of acceptance by a supreme being or supreme state of being as a reward for the sincerity of their embraced and embodied immersion into a realization of that which is achievable by a particularized path and way of personalized conduct through a conduit tailored for a unique disposition they have come to master... thus after which be able to speak of or otherwise convey to others the existence of a realm that may, in reality, be easily achieved, but the person was so overwhelmed by the experience has come to over-value it as a special place requiring everyone to do as they do in order to achieve something that might well be obtainable more easily by those with a different sensibility from a different vantage point of attendance, if not as an intentionally sought for perception, but as a serendipitously encountered phenomena.

Both Eastern philosophies and Western religions are types of research programs and traditions, exhibiting the same intellectual flaw as most theorists in other disciplines; and that is to become pig-headed in their review of phenomena based on traditions of perspectives from former researchers with their particular views for investigating life... be it called Buddhism, Shintoism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Daoism, etc., or one of their many sub-divisions called sects, off-shoots or "heresies to the fatith", with some describing themselves as following the "true", the "pure", the "real", way in which to pursue a study of god and life, religion, etc... We can find the same attitude in Mathematics with those claiming they are engageg in a study of "Pure" mathematics, suggesting all other forms are adulterations or prostitutes that sell themselves to the highest bidder. However, Western Religions and Eastern philosophies or any discipline of study which primarily is focused on a Preeminent Being or Preeminent State of Being are subjects with very limited and narrow interests. So if you are a person who wants to know about ideas in other subjects, such forms of research are not well-suited for you. They do however, provide some measure of utilizing basic patterns which can be found in all subject areas, whether the subject areas are dominant by the theoretical views of those who are not aware of the basic patterns which very often become expressed with enumeration. The usage of a "Binary opposition" formula attached to the notion of "Structuralism" is a case in point. Whereas there are those who gain acceptance to and attendance with a given religious or pseudo-religio-philosophy and study other subjects, since so many scientists in the past are noted for having interpreted some aspect of their religion in terms of the observations of discovered ideas and/or processes and/or phenomena as a defense against any idea that they might be engaged in some irreligious or even practicing some dark anti-god activity. Far too often new discoveries have had to be viewed in accord with some old or newly devised religious interpretation.

When we have religions which are very much contributors of social problems along with problems created by politics, commerce, the military, the military provisions industry, education, journalism, etc., etc., etc., along with a prevailing perspective of "managing" problems so as to create a hierarchy of jobs instead of solving problems, it is easy for research disciplines to poke a finger outward instead of inward... in order to distance themselves from any noted reference they too are part of the problem because they refuse to recognize fundamentals... or upon seeing them, don't know how to manipulate them in order to maintain the status quo of their discipline! They don't want to recognize any idea that will force them to give up their livelihood, even if in so doing it would create a better overall society and future for humanity. Even if you as a researcher have the exact equation in hand that would solve one or more problems, no one will take you seriously if it means that the end result will be to discard one or more institutions that provide an industry of education and jobs for millions in which a hierarchy of leadership, supportive adherents with a financial or social stake, and followers will be adversely affected in the immediate short term in order to serve up a greater outcome in the long term.

The former "Binary"-based Structuralism used in Cultural Anthropology attributed its foundational view not only on ideas from the Philosophy called Phenomenology as well as Gestalt Psychology, but from ideas generated by Linguistics, though no doubt ideas referencing other disciplines was part of the overall intellectual climate of development research. Let me provide an excerpt from the previous "Binary Structuralism" page:

The basic framework of Lévi-Strauss's theories was derived from the work of structural linguistics. From N.S. Trubetzkoy, the founder of structural linguistics, Lévi-Strauss developed his focus on unconscious infrastructure as well as an emphasis on the relationship between terms, rather than on terms as entities in themselves. From the work of Roman Jakobson, of the same school of linguistic thought, Lévi-Strauss adopted the so-called distinctive feature method of analysis, which postulates that an unconscious "metastructure" emerges through the human mental process of pairing opposites. In Lévi-Strauss's system the human mind is viewed as a repository of a great variety of natural material, from which it selects pairs of elements that can be combined to form diverse structures. Pairs of oppositions can be separated into singular elements for use in forming new oppositions.

But I can't sit by and let a reference such as "Linquistics" go by without referencing a gargantuan flaw that continues to drown the results into an absurdity, because...

The problem with all Linguistics theories is that none of them take into consideration the role in which hearing plays. Whereas a deaf child may nonetheless engage in babbling, the use of words is a whole different issue. While all disciplines of inquiry say that they seek out fundamental structures and their origins, the fact that an ability to hear is an essential, basic component of linguistic behavior should be a part of that research. Astonishingly, it isn't! What in the world is wrong with all the many thousands of researchers looking into one another fundamental structures... be it cognition, philosophy, linguistics or otherwise related to thinking and its application to inanimate structures such as computer language meant to imitate human cognitive processes? Why in the world do they continue to refuse to look at hearing and its fundamental structuring as a possible influence on human thinking and language... and thus on how we formulate theories?

Let me offer an image which I have done so on very many occasions, but can not get any of the so-called experts to even take a look at something they have overlooked, and quite frequently make excuses for themselves for having overlooked such an obvious... fundamental structural component... a link in the chain of language:

The human ear, as part of anatomy, expresses a recurring three pattern

Not only does the recurring patterns-of-three in the ear provide us with food for thought concerning how language and ideas may be influenced, but it also lends itself to actual testability, as opposed to mere thought experiments like so many philosophical perspectives. If we cant get several of the testing laboratories in different Universities to construct artificial ears which are enabled to replace the recurring "three" pattern with alternatives, including mix and match variations, connected to an appropriate input/output transmission and reception system of measurement, we can determine what patterns produce what results; thereby advancing our knowledge of a new era in thinking about thinking and the alternative models of thought which can be generated in this fashion. Similarly, a hearing device of this nature can be used to alter the pathways and structural relays which determine the outcome a computer might be able to functionally apply, as an alternative to using mere Boolean logic with its characteristic basic 3-pattern of AND/OR/NOT.

Such a system might be better suited for a Ternary computer than a Binary one. Yet, nonetheless, invite us to re-think those ideas involving the use of some Binary formula, even if a theory does not explicitly use the words "Binary," duality, dichotomy, pairing, input/output, etc... Any an all ideas which are looking at Linguistics as an impetus, as a fundamental paradigm, as a basic blueprint by which they can judge the content of their observations, cataloguing, longitudinal analysis, and assumed justification for believing in one or another view; are required to look at the process of hearing because of its fundamental anatomical design consistent with other 3-patterned structures, as well as exhibiting the same pattern we find in particle physics... if one should want to examine even more fundamental structures.

However, because I can not get the so-called experts to give the present idea their undivided attention, it is likely that I will have to resort to more drastic, dramatic and seemingly deranged tactics, such as going to MIT and holding a class of students hostage. I can see it now, the headlines reading the typical journalistic flair for getting the public to tune-into its commentary by saying MIT is under siege by a Domestic terrorist with a vengeful blood lust who is thought to have killed multiple students and whose demands remain unknown... and are not doubt the repository of some secret cell and network operating under the radar of common consciousness! Then again, I could simply buy enough pizza and beer to serve up some initial inquiry so as to avoid spending time in jail and eventually prison... only to find no one at MIT as the ability to understand my idea anyway! Oh the irony, as is so often the case when one resorts to an extreme tactic! Nonetheless, it may be enough if I tell all readers to notify the authorities and those at MIT that there is a potential crazy person who might invade them... and like Jesus, not disclose the appointed hour of my arrival! Yes! That's it! Include the role of religious fanaticism, and wear clothing thought to be worn by all adherents of a lunatic sect that wear strange tattoos, speak in a foreign tongue and claim all non-believers as infidels! Yes! Tell them all that an invasion of like-minded religious fanatics are about to invade their domains and make demands whose adherents believe so deeply in that they will willingly sacrifice life and limb because as a true believer the are guaranteed a place in the great beyond!

Now that you as a reader are undoubtedly on the side of such righteousness, and have performed the required ritual of laughing out loud at my written display of histrionic gesticulations, let us return to the "act normal" recipe so that no one is the wiser of our true intent... which is to provide the ground work for setting into place a foundation upon which a different structural phenomenology can be built and advanced by psychology, anthropology and linguistics.

In order to differentiate a three-based structuralist idea from the former two... or binary-based formula, it is of need to make some distinctions that the old ideas of incorporation (linguistics, psychology, phenomenology) used, as well as taking into consideration a more sensible appraisal of what the word "binary" represents as part of a fundamental cognitive architecture subjecting theorists to a recurring tow-patterned mindset being overlooked:

  • The Westernized Philosophical traditions (based on observation) of arguing in a binary formula with different terms such as Nature/ Nurture, Body/ Mind, gods/ men, empirical/ theoretical, experimental/ theoretical, experimental/ empirical, etc....
  • The Easternized Philosophical traditions organizing observations of different phenomena into a yin/yang dichotomy.
  • The Westernized Mathematical traditions (based historically on philosophical considerations) of generating dichotomies from which to construct formula supported by like-minded proofs and axioms.
    • The best-known consistency proof is that of the German mathematician Gerhard Gentzen (1936) for the system N of classical (or ordinary, in contrast to intuitionistic) number theory. ("metalogic." Encyclopaelig;dia Britannica, 2013.)

Examples of yin and yang patterns-of-two List of Dualites in Mathematics
Examples of duality ideas

Source: Mesologue

  • The two-patterned phenomenology of Husserl (with his noema/ noesis).
  • The linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure with his principle "that a language is a self-contained relational structure, the elements of which derive their existence and their value from their distribution and oppositions in texts or discourse." [He also introduced two terms that have become common currency in linguistics—"parole," or the speech of the individual person, and "langue," the system underlying speech activity. His distinctions proved to be mainsprings to productive linguistic research and can be regarded as starting points on the avenue of linguistics known as structuralism.] ("Saussure, Ferdinand de." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
  • The Persistent Dichotomies in Psychology.
  • The (Auguste) Comte and (Herbert) Spencer views of Sociology having two main divisions as "statics" and "dynamics".
  • Social problems as consequences of the two revolutions: the industrial and democratic. ("Social Science." Britannica, 2013.)
  • The male/female divisions in which women defer to men
      ...And those women who think they can equal out the division to create a parity by developing a female dominant organization (Such as "N.O.W.").
    1. ...And striving to include women in a previously established male-only club (such as in politics).
    2. ...And thinking they will have some grand leadership position based on some notion of establishing a female dominant institutionalization.
    3. ...And strive to be "as good as a man", (and therefore are not really needed as a male psyche in a female body); when they need to be better... yet do not have the history, wisdom, experience, or nor intellectual tradition for establishing what "better" actually means (except for words such as stronger, braver, or effecting actions such as being more risk taking, impulsively courageous, combative, aggressive, blood thirstier, irresponsible, abusive, manipulative, hardened, irrationally logical, raping, murderous, suspicious, secretive, demanding, etc., as well as indulging in more rationalizations such as "collateral damage", "patriotic sacrifice", the poor are to blame for their own problems, rich people need more money to provide jobs, et..) all because women are dependent on men for participating in institutionally driven creations of what, when, where, by whom, and how something is to be defined, and most women are too ideologically stubborn to actually see how much of their lives and the life blood of a society is dependent on the ideas and activities which are back-boned by men.
    4. ... And do not recognize that they have not had the will, nor means to establish an active system of Referendum by which their assumed dominance can voice a collective opinion to change, delete, or create laws which the collective will of the "Woman" can manifest as a reality without the need for engaging in staged protests.
    5. ...And do not recognize that using their sexuality as a weapon or tool of manipulation can only do so much for so long, because it becomes akin to the old adage: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
    6. ...And fail to recognize that the predatory nature of those Lesbians wanting to effect and establish a dominant role of a self-designed and self-defined parity which they lead... otherwise the grouping "LBGT" would have a differently featured lineup of these letters; creates a social (word of mouth) institutionaliation which views them as being untrustwothy because of a singularly obsessive sex-driven orientation; and any organization which entrusts them with leadership, can not itself be trusted, nor be taken seriously' for they are not the mirror-image you want the majority of young boys and girls to grow up with as a standard identity of social measure, personal worth, and purposefulness.

It is common for all of us to overlook the fact that many of the present areas of study originated as a part of philosophy, and yet philosophy itself refuses to profess its independence and establish itself as a stand-alone science that, as s parent, has successfully remade itself after the children have left the nest. Its enculturated symbiotic dependency on other subjects (like a parent forcing themselves on a child who has established a life of their own) must be subjected to a forced weaning, unless it wants to play the part of an aging person entering a dotage and thus needs constant oversight and care involving necessities like feeding, toileting, changing clothes, bathing and putting to bed; as well as providing some form of daily distraction to entertain them. It can no longer be permitted to be breast or bottle fed, nor be given any similar substitute pacifier. Its high-chair, walk-in-the-park stroller days and playground forays being watched over by a care-giver are over, unless what we are both witnessing and admitting that Philosophy will need life-long assistance because it was born with a malformation such as we see in mental retardation, down syndrome severity and some models of palsy.

In order to lay the cornerstone of a foundation for a Newer model of Anthropological Structuralism which can be applied to other subject areas such a philosophy, mathematics, psychology, linguistics, etc., it is of need to view the word "Binary" as a later, linguistically derived re-modeling of a more basic idea which is enumeration.

Whereas the usage of the Term "Binary" is meant to convey some measure of simplicity for a wide audience to grasp; before the usage of number-words were preceded by the idea of quantity being displayed with numbers which were historically preceded by the use marks such as notches on some medium such as rock, bone, sticks or simply the ground, to which both Anthropologists as well as Mathematicians might label as tally sticks. Hence, let us further simplify the Structuralist's simplification by referencing basic numbers, which play a greater part in everyone's mind then do large or complex numbers. Indeed, when we get to larger numbers we see in them a return to some basic formula such as the bi-in billion and the tri- in trillion; which have become commercialized limits in terms of allocating commerce and commercial possibilities of acquisition... not to mention the typical application of using a comma after every group of three in basic place-value notation, as well as the recurring usage of compartmentalizing numbers into sets of 3, sometimes followed by three dots as if to express the larger quantity with a label such "more," "many," "and so-on" or "so-forth".

Place value notation in which a comma is used to indicate a pause or separstion

While there are many instances of people using a so-called "Binary opposition", such a label doesn't accurately nor adequately reference the observation that many of the double-characterizations are not oppositional, but complimentary or if you prefer: complementary. Nor does it make an allowance for those basic patterns of mental activity describing a Singularity or "1" or "oneness", such as the concept of 1 god, 1 leader, 1 item, etc... Likewise, it doesn't describe a concept of "threeness" which might be expressed in terms of an artistically rendered geometric figure such as a triangle, or a "4ness" combined with a "7ness" such as in the case of displaying a swastika which originated with the seven stars of the Big Dipper observed at 4 different times of the year called the 2 Equinoxes and 2 Solstices.

And let us also remark that the phrase "Binary opposition" does not effectively describe the multiple use of a "five-ness" in referencing the number of fingers on a hand or toes on a foot, from which the use of a base five no doubt arose as well as the base 10 used in mathematics. Nor does it keep pace with human conceptualization of using 7 days in the week, and average of 30 days to a month, a 365 day year, the 7 colors of the visible light spectrum or the usage of 7 in the periodic table; though the "2" can be seen in the Binomial Nomenclature used in biology.

Though a "Binary opposition" theory used as a structuralist formula is not without merit, and lends itself well to primitive cultures and later cultures whose intellectual, industrial and technological advances would seem to be replications of the binary in a different wardrobe and complexity of interaction, it must be assessed from the view that humans trying to effect a modern civilization are not actually that far removed from their more primitive pasts, and in many cases exhibit the standards of conduct seen more so amongst wild beasts than any primitive human culture who apparently would otherwise use a happy-go-lucky foraging technique of survival, so long as they have no other clans competing for the same resources which may be in short supply. The ability to see a similarity of binary profiles in both presumed primitive and presumed advance cultures advances the usage of some untenable assumptions:

  • That so-called primitive peoples do not evolve from one period of research observation to the next, because a cognitive evolution takes a long time, is steadily progressive and does not occur in fits and starts, episodically or punctuationally.
  • That so-called advanced peoples are greatly distanced from their more primitive pasts and that their advanced cognition does not slide backwards (Vertically), sideways (Horizontally) or Diagonally.

In addition to the foregoing false notions one might construct after a review of the Binary-based structuralist formula when confronted by a larger set of observations, there are some further assumptions which are themselves untenable:

  • That the Binary formula is a dominant cognitive profile of all humans.
  • That there are no other basic cognitive patterns which can exert their influence in different ways.
  • That theoretical consideration for other basic cognitive patterns is without empirical merit.
  • That the label "Binary" is itself a fundamental pattern of human cognitive activity.
  • That there are no other fundamental patterns more easily recognized if one uses different labels.
  • That geometric configurations of cognitive activity are complexities and not fundamental patterns themselves.
  • That the usage of the term "transcendence" must always apply to the "spiritual", whereby it can't explain evolutionary change in cognitive behavior.
  • That the label "spirituality" and its attendant wardrobe called religion, metaphysics, transcendentalism, etc., are not expressions of constructed intimations of basic cognitive activity involving both individual and collective evolutionary changes (not to be equated as emotional maturity); but are misidentified and claimed to be owned by both Western religion and Eastern philosophical traditions.
  • That the ideas which have become institutions (Religion, Philosophy, Psychology, Mathematics, Architecture, Art, Music, Dance, Sports, etc.,) are already fully designed to seek out, identify and utilize fundamental patterns for which they epitomize and are not otherwise crude approximations of more fundamental patterns because they were developed by those seeking some fundamental answer to some fundamental question.

While we can see that the usage of a Binary formula by those in Western cultures occurred many centuries before by the Chinese in their constructed concept of yin and yang, their idea is just another "later born" expression of a more fundamental cognitive characterization involving enumeration. The Yin and Yang examples, just like those used by those adopting a Binary opposition ideology can be viewed as a tally stick of pairs. It is like repeating the number "2" over and over again before the human mind advances to a stage of development where the value "3" can be expressed. Similarly, the "1" as a singular notch on a bone, rock, stick or ground was repeated prior to the human mind's development towards using a "2" conceptualization based on pairing. Hence, on some occasions where multiple lines were displayed on some medium used by an ancient human, and that the modern mind thinks to interpret as a large quantity; may actually be a repetition as a self-taught mechanism to reinforce the notion of a particular quantity as we of today might teach a rote form of memorization to children learning some fundamental idea, be in letters, numbers, colors, geometric shapes, hygiene, food types, how to cross a street, etc...

2500 years ago a Chinese Philosopher by the name of Laozi, used enumeration as an expression of basic values being repeated. It was, one might claim, to be riddle that was just as instructive as was the Riddle of the Sphinx in helping people to grasp the nature of fundament occurrences related to life. While the riddle of the Sphinx was solved long ago, the riddle of Laozi had to wait until I did it, by being awakened one night in a dream-like state of cognitive activity, though I was not pursuing it. In fact, though I was aware of the riddle, and in fact had sometime previously been presented with its existence by a colleague, I though little of it, nor thinking of it in terms of being a riddle. While I admit that it awoke me from a slumber, it was a down-played "Eureka!" moment that might have easily dissipated and been lost for someone else to find, had I not insisted on following through with its presence being illustrated in what might be described as a "chicken scratch" jotting down thereof. So, here it is... the answer to a 2500 year old riddle which also serves to illustrate how fundamental cognitive impressions by be expressed with simple enumeration:

Laozi's 2500 year old riddle decoded

The "Dao" of Laozi can be viewed as a fundamental character of cognitive activity, which, when is focused on in the absence of modern trappings, might well be interpreted to be a "Mother" in the sense we might claim in seeking the "Mother tongue" or "Mother of all languages"; similar to the "oneness" described by some philosophical pursuits into some imagined transcendental state of immense realization whose rootedness might symbolically be described in colloquial terms as the fountain of youth, cauldron/bucket/well of gold at the end of the rainbow, power of the gods, etc... Alternatively it might be described as a purity of mind, a purity of being, purity of presence or some place which offers this supposed purity such as Nirvana or Heaven. However, I would like to suggest that in seeking out such a phenomena, what occurs is that a person becomes overwhelmed and that it is the experience of being overwhelmed by an observation of oneself in a state of mind seldom ventured into and that few may ever accurately or adequately articulate... though I might offer the idea that is similar to observing oneself in the presence of a nothingness in mind, but being able to carry out some task... like writing or typing without the presence of a customary inner voice be transcribed. It can be rather unnerving for some who have not experienced the sensation of being able to type or read and yet fully comprehend without having to echo the words or pictures being observed and illustrated by conceptualization anyway.

For example, on several different occasions I found that by thinking about a third option to a flipped coin, I have had three separate occasions in which a coin rolled up against an obstacle and remained on its edge. Hence, the third choice. I have also had the occasion of hearing what sounded like a metal ball-bearing being dropped on a wooden shelf, and then stop as I looked towards the direction of the sound. When it occurred a second time and I looked in the same direction to once again stop. I turned back to a writing task and smiled, while openly expressing the comment for it to "do it again", and then finding that it occurred a third time, but none further, and nor could I find any item in an empty cabinet to explain the three 3-patterned sounds. However, since events such as this have occurred with a frequency to discount the notion of coincidence and their occasions have desensitized me to what might otherwise evoke considerations of an "other-worldly" evil presence, other more intense experiences are similarly catalogued without letting them take the better hold of any would-be rationality and create some imaginative appellation with negative connotations or disruptive... much less destructive misinterpretations leading to a self-obsessed neurosis or psychotic overtones... such as in the case as someone coming to believe they are a spiritual leader... or readers coming to suggest to themselves that a person's honest narrative about such experiences must be interpreted negatively... And let me further state that I have lived a life in which I have been sought out by several people disclosing experiences that they would not dare to speak of to anyone else, because I have a much broader open mind about unusual experiences. For example, a person seeing Big foot, another person being abducted by Aliens, another's believed in past life in which they were well-known, etc...

While Binary formulas of activity are easily recognized, so are other ones if we permit ourselves to use an alternative, more fundamental labeling system which no doubt existed before the use of words, namely symbols of enumeration since the first vocal gestures may well be lost to time and any remnant there of is a reconstructed supposition that may on occasion stretch the imagination and any vestige of approximate verification, even if the opinions of multiple experts leant weight for the acceptance of an assertion. And while it is similarly difficult to say which notch on which medium by which early human represented distinct values of 1, 2, 3..., we are forced to rely upon later expressions of these values as they might occur in different ways, pictorially, symbolically, or with a distinct enumeration. Since so very many quantities today are expressed alternatively with words, pictures and symbols other than numbers, and that though present humans may use a word that was used in the past as well, this is not to suggest that both past and present use them in the same quantitative way.

If we use the basic symbols of 0, 1, 2, 3 as a starting point for identifying basic patterns of cognition used by both early and later humans, we might devise a system exhibiting the following associations to be used for labeling observations, with several expressions that might be placed into more than category such as the example highlighted in blue :

0, or "zeroness"... nothing, non-entity, nothingness, emptiness, void, space, black hole 1, or "oneness"... singularity, god, universe, everything, monad, centrality, infinity, time 2, or "twoness"... binary, duality, pair, dichotomy, opposition, contrast 3, or "threeness"... triad, triangle, pyramid, cone, triune, triple, tepee, arrow/spear head, boomerang, trifold... many, or multiplicity, much, plurality, more, heap, pile, infinity, dimension

There are of course other number patterns one might want to claim are repeating, but in so doing we need to note if they are repetitions which occur in isolation or specificities and are distinct from those which occur often and broadly. For example, some measurements of time (60 secs., 60 min., 365 days, 30 days average to the month, 360 degrees, 12 months, leap years, etc...), are not repeated often in other subjects. And though some such as the "7" may occur in both cultural orientations such as the 7 ages of man or the 7 sages, or the 7 seas, or the 7 continents, 7 "teen" years, etc. and occur in science such as 7 colors to the visible spectrum, 7 divisions in the periodic table, etc..., the number 7 is not as frequent or wide spread as are patterns-of-two or patterns-of-three.

One of the recurring patterns can be summed up as both a spectrum and an ensemble, featuring the words (as quantities) known as 1- 2- Many.

In addition, a researcher might well overlook patterns such as three-pattern ensembles such as the "2-3-4" (Devil's Advocate 14A)or a variation of the "4" being seen as a 3 -to- 1 ratio.

The idea about geometric patterns being basic representations of human cognitive processing is widely accepted as a given, but is largely absent from the toolbox of Researchers interested in Human historical events; being dismissed with the general label "symbolism" without any importance to be catalogued or discussed overtime; mainly because researchers of today are like the naive researchers of the past who initially started thinking about ancient cultures and ancient animals. Yet, let's be honest in describing the ignorance of most people in what to make of the many elaborately designed crop circles being found. If one claims they are the work of humans we guess it to be a hoax and if we claim it to be of an extra-terrestrial or other-worldly origin, we still don't' know what to make of them or how to accurately and adequately compile them to make some sense for their appearance. And though, understandably, it may be difficult to arrange more complex illustrations, this should not be the case for simply designs, but these too are treated in the same manner, like those who see or think they see a particular quantity and decide that "there are a lot of them"... and therefore do not merit any attention because it is the rarity of appearance one attaches their own ego to.

Like those who attach themselves to a supposed god with multiple rarities, of which I will name only three as an example...:

  1. It is rare for someone to be contacted directly by god.
  2. It is rare to be selected as a "chosen" people.
  3. It is rare for a miracle to occur.

However, basic geometric patterns exist widely and can be tentatively grouped into three:

  1. Linear
  2. Circular
  3. Triangular

These three patterns need to be distinguished from more elaborate geometries such as the square, which in the modern sense is a basic pattern, but in the distant more primitive past would be hard to find, though perhaps available to a microscopic examination that I am not aware of. Indeed, the lack of square-patterned undulations or ripples when a rock is thrown into a pool of water and the recurrence of a circular pattern... though we take it for granted, is a situation which might be extended to the sub-atomic particle arena as well as the more extant space of planetary bodies which spin in circular swirls and the idea of a black hole that of the occasion of water being under-towed by a force sufficient enough to break the surface and plunge downward... as if space is thick like a depth of water in which a rock or stone may fall and for a period of time equal to its energy create a momentary suction. While the suction caused by displacement is short-lived in the human realm of tossing a rock into a pool of water, the duration may be magnified if it occurred in space. However, where does the force go to? Is there a bottom like a rock hitting a river bottom? And what then is the depth of spatial vacuum is more than a mere thought exercise? Such is an example of seeking basic geometric patterns with greater complexity of application into subject areas that may be removed from the more primitive humans, unless they to explore such consideration with applications closer to their reality of cognitive exploration.

There actually is no comprehensive analysis of any culture taking place because of the limitations imposed on research by the theories in use. While one theory over another may well provide a distinction that another theory glosses over or dismisses as being irrelevant or doesn't even get on the radar of observation; more than likely it too will have short-comings whether a research admits it or not. Later researchers will, yet it is no guarantee that some future researcher will be any the wiser or more perspicacious. A point in fact is the lack of a ternary or Trinary Structuralist idea. If the currency of research is focused in one area or direction over another, it is much like a game in which a player grabs a ball and begins to run with it, thereby causing others to chase them and continue the game as it was started and then engaged multiple others. So when you come across a leading interest in one area of research though other areas exist, you must question who is leading the game and why do others follow them?

For example, it was once thought that developing a "social science" (Later called Sociology)... a science about society; that everyone would be rewarded with a grand realization of how to solve and address recurring problems... which was later addressed by different schools of thought supplied by government grants, out of which little more than different types of generated statistics arose (1940s):

  • Columbia University (focusing on cultural surveys).
  • University of Chicago (specializing in quantitative analysis of social conditions and detailed studies of urban problems).

However, this idea... of a Science studying society (and overlapping with other disciplines such a Anthropology, History, Psychology, Linguistics, and Evolutionary Biology); regardless of its originators good and sincere intentions, has fallen into the camp of being just another type of specific philosophy for armchair (Approximationist) philosophers who make reports, create graphs and talk endlessly about both macroscopic and microscopic details... from which has arisen an institution that is little more than a big boys and girls club with a hierarchy of members who very often create very elaborate rationalizations as to the usefulness of their theoretical orientation very speciously and suspiciously applied to some social activity to give the pretense of having more value than it actually does. A club within a club, like so many other research fields. Talk, talk, talk, that's all we do because there is not comprehensive realization of humanity on the planet... and when one does come up, every single person in every single discipline wants to ensure they are part of the pecking order, or else any theory, however accurate, will be ignored.

There is no attempt to create a theory which propels society into becoming a construction site for a new, better, future society... because all the brainy people in all the subjects have got their head stuck in the sandbox soiled with their own drooled-out spittle and dirty diapers, if not actual urine and feces and the sometimes provocative three-patterned theme of "blood- sweat- and tears," among those in their own group, causing massive points of theoretical departure from which multiple sub-divisions of the discipline have spawned... and yet very little regard is given to the phenomena of the development of different intellectual divisions as a product to be studied itself.

That's right. The phenomena of spawned research fields away from the parental wings of Philosophy which they originated, only to foster multiple sub-division (children) themselves, and yet can't even have a one-day get-together as a clan of philosophical off-spring. Why did they spring away from Philosophy? Because traditional philosophy is like an aging parent or even grandparent whose old ideas keep it from developing itself into a Science in its own right. Philosophy is afraid to remake itself after all the kids have left the nest and developed their own lives and personalities distinct from their philosophical parents and grandparents. It is a phenomena of human behavior that has not yet become a science with its own established Academic curriculum because it is an idea which sets up a mirror in from of every discipline so it can take at honest look at where they are, who they are and what they actually look and act like below all the intellectual costuming and theatrical events each one gets involved with as a staging exhibition which gains a following and fans, just like any sporting event, musical concert or "theater" of combat with its many actors... such as is described by Military officials who seek to provide a greater legitimation to themselves by adopting labels used in other intellectual traditions of expenditure to provide an illusion of sophistication.

Date of Origination: Saturday, 28th January 2023... 11:00 AM
Date of Initial posting: Monday, 30th January 2023... 10:47 AM