Threesology Research Journal: A Study of the Threes phenomena
A Study of the Threes Phenomena
(Applied to Evolutionary Biology)

→→→ Tripartite Collection 1 ←←←



Flag Counter
Threes Detectives as of Dec. 17, 2024

The word "Trichotomization" needs to be added to your vocabulary. Its absence from the online dictionary of Psychology terms speaks volumes about the current state of both the teaching and clinical standards of Psychology which is focused on a predominant usage of Dichotomization, typically referenced as dualities (effect/affect), or ambivalence (Schizophrenia), or legal contrasts (sane/insane), or opposites (Manic/Depression), etc... This is extremely problematic and will attempt to address in the Evolutionary Psychodynamics Series.

The conceptual realization of a developing mental state potential into what I am describing as a 3rd Consciousness, is almost entirely absent in most subjects. The philosophical terms "Enlightenment" Nirvana, heightened awareness, meta-reality, etc., should be interpreted as crude intimations created by those whose sensibilities are actively engaged in attempted illustrative formulations of personalized explanations of impressions which their individual states of experience are being impressed upon; whether defined as Eureka! a Revelation, a Revolution of thought, a Rebirth, a Reincarnation, or some other term excitedly relevant in their respective circumstances and vocabulary. While some Philosophers, Mathematicians, Musicians, and other Artistic orientations have made excursions into that which can be described as a realm of Trichotomization, all too often I pay witness to those... despite their genuine sincerity, are indulging in an embellished dichotomy. The most used expression is in thinking about some middle way, or way-station, or other balancing act between two extremes, when the point is that they are attempting to achieve an equilibrium, a measure of control between two extremes, as if it were a type of level with a bubble that is supposed to be in the middle. In other words, they have achieved some middle ground within the field of a given contrast (within a "system of duality") and not an altogether actual third position to be distinguished from the duality. Some good analogies of "dichotomous systems" of thought are:

  • Between a rock and a hard place.
  • Out of the fire and into the frying pan.
  • My way, Your way, and the right way.
  • Up the creek without a paddle.
  • The Tortoise and a Scorpion crossing a river.
  • The Calculus of a Tortoise and Hare in a race.

The image of a bubble in the middle of a level is how most people might well describe a third position, thereby overlooking that is is a placement of thought between two extremes and not an actual third position that is an alternative to the entire "system of dichotomy". The bubble between two extremes is not a separate third position, but is a place co-existing in the "system of a dichotomy". It is difficult to think in such alternative terms by those whose upbringing and personal experience rely on "systems of dichotomization", such as in Psychology and other subjects like standard Mathematics.

The level llustrates a standard system of duality

A colleague quite recently attempted to portray an idea of moving beyond a duality by asserting that some mid-point between two extremes creates a defining triangular edifice, yet I had to point out that he was erecting his pyramid on the landscape of a duality.

Upon reflection however, the "bubble in the middle" as a system of Dichotomy might referentially be called, is not adequate enough to accurately portray itself as part of the overall system. When we have the situation that the bubble in the middle is part of the larger bubble in which a duality occurs, we need an image expressing this view. A circle around the level could suffice for some, but it leads to other currencies of thought, such as placing the bubble in a bubble inside yet another bubble, even if it is not explicitly illustrated in the following image:

Dualities occur as systems and can be featured as a bubble.

A "system of dichotomization" strives to incorporate every action, every idea, every nuance of consideration into itself. Like Religions of old which adapted themselves to currencies of change by confiscating popular ideas and reshaping/naming them according to the accepted collective views of leadership, so as to make them their own and thereby acquiring a larger following which paid a token for being allowed to pay obeisance to manipulations which practiced a means of gathering personalized information to induce even more control by way of confessions, so too do present day systems of associated dichotomy (such as Psychology) which themselves have become social institutions favoring one another as collaborators.

  • Governments use enforced laws and pledges of sworn Allegiance to effect control.
  • Religions use public pledges of fidelity and private confessions to effect control.
  • Psychology uses pharmacological constraints and psychotherapy to effect control.

Otherwise known as The Happy Medium, or Everything in Moderation, or Happy Hunting Ground, Or Valhalla, or Heaven, or One with the Creator, or non-existence, or Death, or absence, the median, etc., all of them are expressions of an Embellished Dichotomy, even if the Contrasts are not recognized. They are not an actual state of Trichotomization no matter how they are labeled with or without some emblematic "three," third, ternary, triad, trinity, triple, triunity, etc... An actual third option needs to be distinguished from being a participant in a duality, though the concept is hard to construct with a consciousness steeped in the mires of multiple realities of practiced duality, quite evident with human cultures throughout the world, particularly in the presence of Religion, Politics, commerce, Psychology, Sports, gambling, medicine, etc... And even though the basic language of present day computers relies on a Binary code related to the On/Off electrical circuit, efforts are being made to create a true ternary/trinary code for the next (quantum) generation of computers.

Yet, I have gotten ahead of myself in expressing where my research into the "threes" has taken me. Thus, permit me to regress to a former time...

In Studying what I have at times referred to as the "Threes Phenomena", or the recurrence of patterns-of-three in different subject areas, the general pattern has come to exhibit patterns within the pattern. Years after I first began my initial list of examples, is when the recurrence of a particular pattern identified in Biology and Zoology texts came to impress upon me the notion that I was looking at what could be described as an environmentally influenced predisposition to conceptualize many of our ideas, perform many of our activities, and grow physiologically along a 1-2-3 maturational development sequence.

While patterns-of-three are widespread, they don't exist everywhere or we would not have other recurring patterns as well. As such, it has been necessary to at least make a mental note of recurring patterns that were not exhibiting a "three", as being a part of the overall structure of identify events expressing some enumeration. And yes, I also made notes of the absence of enumeration or when enumeration was being expressed by something other than a number such as words, marks, utterances, gestures, etc... Nonetheless, the fact that there was a clear recurrence of the "three" pattern was a very curious phenomena, although I can not say for certain why this particular number was focused on. However, I did not claim it to be due to some god or other religious idea. It was a pattern, however simple the reader may want to describe it... and thus some consider it to be too simple for what they believe to be not worthy of their supposed higher intelligence, such as playing chess... or something else involving money, sex, or assumed personal power an indication of prowess. While chess is a game that has patterns but is for the most part, a waste of time for me to indulge in... in order to learn patterns to be attributed to little figures for the sole purpose of playing a game very much like war or some sporting event.

In my study of threes, I have gone from one subject to another and from one observation to another, not only noticing the presence of a pattern-of-three, but how a person thinks of it or doesn't pay much attention to it, even if I make mention of the person's recurring use of the pattern like that of a barber I used to go to who would "snip" his scissors three times before, during and after while cutting my hair. However, because the other barbers did not similarly engage in the behavior, I thought at the time it might be due to the barber's elderly age. However, my from time to time observations into this "snipping" behavior don't take place anymore since the cost of cutting one's hair is too high and I now prefer to cut my own hair.

I can't say whether others noticed the Barber's 3-snips behavior or intentionally preferred not to copy him, but the fact that patterns-of-three can occur without anyone recognizing or paying attention to them has come to be a realization I have had to include in my notes. Upon mentioning the presence of a repeating "three" pattern, I have sometimes incurred the disposition of someone engaging in a one-upmanship act of trying to best me by claiming some larger number they suggest is repeating, even though most are merely commenting impulsively and there is no actual repetition taking place. In other words, they are being dismissive of my comment about a recurring "three" pattern that for some reason they feel they have been slighted by not recognizing an obvious recurrence and must therefore attempt to conceal such an observational absence by attempting to diminish it in some way. Some quickly change the subject while others may choose to recognize the presence of another pattern that they think I hadn't seen simply because I didn't bring it up.

Yet, in some instances, it could rightly be said that information supplied by one person might well exhibit some other-than-three pattern, but that the same information could be formatted to fit within a "three" frame of categorization. It is one of those "tumato/toomato: putato/pootato semantic differences which take place visually instead of aurally. At other times, it is the case where multiple authors share a similar idea of an other-than three pattern, even though there does indeed exist a pattern-of-three which can be deduced from the same information. Take for example the oft' cited Pentadactyl limb. The "Pentadactyl" is a reference to the often recurring five digits on the upper and lower appendages of vertebrate animals. The name and subsequent categorization of generalized similarities from multiple vertebrate animals over time has and continues to be quite useful for comparative anatomy occurring over millions of years of anatomical development in multiple species.

Pentadactyl Limb examples

Somewhere along the way in my research I developed the idea that the enumerated structures which could be identified, suggested to me that Nature may be indulging in the use of some unrecognized counting scheme, but that the scheme always presented itself as if a primitive human or child was engaged in the count. In other words, it appears to be quite unsophisticated in comparison to what we deem as mathematics, and gives the impression of being an exercise being used by a child, like a child in the counting themes seen in school yard games and rhymes. Indeed, why is there a recurrence of the simple "three" pattern in DNA as well as atomic particles? Why not some elaborate sophistication like a non-decodable cipher or password? Why not some random mix and match numbers, letters, sounds, feelings, etc., unless that which influenced the easily identifiable patterns is due the simplicity of the structured environmental influence.

In other words, that which fashions the recurring patterns is itself simplistic, such that in searching for an influence for the development of the Triplet code in DNA due to the precursor pathway of light sensitive basic macromolecules, we can identify a triple pattern having occurred with the Sun b way of its three distinct (dawn- noon- dusk) phases, which would have been like a three-patterned disco light when the Earth's rotation was much faster. Could it be this simple? And yet, if we accept this idea for the sake of supposition, then we may be able to predict a future change when we take into consideration the Earth's slowing rotation, the moon receding and the Sun enlarging towards its eventual burnout stage. Hence, the influenced "three" will start to merge into one, giving us the idea of a 3 to 1 ratio. (In a sense, the Trinity and Trimurti are like plants facing the direction of the Sun which influenced their initial creation in an earlier era. They are references of heliotropisms occurring in the consciousness of millions. Other ideas exhibit lunar-trophisms.)

However, if this is the course for genetics, then what of the human mind? Does it exhibit the same three and three-into-one pattern by way of ideological considerations? As a matter of fact it does, when we look at the Christian notion of the "3 persons in 1 godhead" trinity, and the 3 into 1 Trimurti of Hinduism. (Brahma, Vishnu, Siva are manifestations of Brahman.) But such correlations are more in-line with religious based Numerology than scientific factuality. Nonetheless, the idea is museful.

My interest in the "three" pattern leads me to consider alternative perspectives of the Pentadactyl limb and to consider the derived ideas with broader application. For example, the Pentadactyl structure can be assessed as follows, which can bring to mind alternative applications:

Pentadactyl limb divisioned into thirds

By using a three-part theme of the structure added to a Sociological perspective, we get the following idea which also emphasizes the presence of greater political force "associated" with the larger muscles attached to the upper portions of the limbs:

Standard Cognitive Model

Whereas the Pentadactyl structure is used successfully in comparative anatomy, it is not also used to suggest it expresses a basic pattern of human thinking, such that the development of early counting by humans is generally described as a "one- two- many" sequence, relative to three values. In other words, their word for "one" (whatever their language equivalent was) was sometime later followed by their word for "two", though this does not describe the length of time or quantity of people who may have been involved with the development of a basic counting system. And nor does it describe the length of the interval between their "1" and "2" of if after the initial "1" concept, everything was initially described as more, much, many, heap, pile, etc... In other words, the early count may have proceeded such as:

  • 1...
  • 1, many...
  • 1, 2...
  • 1, 2, many...
Imaginative illustration about the origin of thinking in quantitative terms

In any respect, if I use the phrase "one- two- many" in reference to the early development of a reference to quantity, the reader shouldn't have difficulty getting the gist of what I am describing, even if it was also used to describe quality. The point is, like that seen in several instances of developmental biology, we can pay witness to a very simplistic counting scheme. While children today have rhymes which exceed "three" such as the:

  • One-Two, buckle my shoe, Three-Four, shut the door....etc.,
  • One potato, two potato, three potato, four... etc.,
  • 3 pennies: 1 on the Avenue, 2 an the Sea, 3 on the Railroad (out goes he/she)

Counting-out-Rhyme: (From the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013)

Gibberish formula used by children, usually as a preliminary to games in which one child must be chosen to take the undesirable role designated as "It" in the United States, "It" or "He" in Britain, and "wolf," "devil," or "leper" in some other countries. Among the most popular rhymes are those having the refrain "Eeny, meeny, miny, mo." Players form a line or a circle and a caller dubs each in turn with a word of the rhyme. The one on whom the last word or syllable falls is eliminated, and the rhyme is repeated until all are counted out except the one who is "It."

Some of the rhymes are very old and remarkably similar from country to country. For example, the British "Eena, meena, mona, my,/ Barcelona, bona, stry" can be compared to the north German "Ene, tene, mone, mei/ Pastor, lone, bone, strei." The "Eeny, meeny" refrain has been linked to sets of ancient numerals of uncertain origin still used in England by shepherds and fishermen in their work.

Sometimes terms of later currency are substituted for traditional terms if they capture the children's fancy or complete a rhyme (e.g., "diesel," "bikini," or "Mickey Mouse"). Folklorists have also identified, embedded among the nonsense words and topical allusions, relics of ancient charms, Latin liturgy, or secret passwords of the Freemasons. Thus, a gibberish line such as "otcha, potcha, dominotcha" and its variants—"Hocca, proach, domma, noach," "Oka, poka, dominoka," "Hocus, pocus, deminocus"—can be traced to the solemn Hoc est enim corpus meum ("This is my body") phrase of the mass.

Some folklorists have connected counting-out rhymes with ancient Druidic rituals of sortilege in which the victim on whom the lot fell was chosen for death. Remote as this may be, counting out is conducted by children with elaborate seriousness, and the one on whom the lot falls accepts it fatalistically.

In these rhymes the word "out" is often a prominent dramatic feature of the climax. The Scottish child may say:

Black pudding, white troot
I choose the first one oot

In the United States, children may say:

Icka backa, icka backa
Icka backa boo;
Icka backa, soda cracka
Out goes you!

The elimination may be further dramatized by spelling:

O-U-T spells out goes he
Right in the middle of the deep blue sea.

It goes without saying that humans use numbers for multiple tasks. One of these such as that shown in the previously shown Pentadactyl limb, (and that I can deduce a pattern-of-three as an alternative perspective), is not alone in being referenced multiple times by different people. Another pattern is the Fibonacci Series (sequence). While some have rightly noticed the recurring nature of cells dividing and then multiplying and some observers have initiated a listing of threes patterns, there is at least one model of the three pattern that is being overlooked. The pattern closely resembles the simple place value notation where every group of three is supplied with a comma in order to differentiate the next three of higher complexity. And even though we humans are inclined (at least in English) to write the numbers from right to left in ascending order while using the notation system, we generally go from left to right when we are counting without the usage of such a notation system.

Permit me to provide a very simple illustration of Evolutionary Development using a 1-2-3 Developmental system of enumerated notation:

Evolutionary biology exhiits a basic system of numerical notation

If I now add specific references of the 1-2-3 enumeration from biology's basic themes of development, we see a recurrence of the simplistic enumeration being used and also cited in particle physics, where values are often divested into thirds (or other fractionation), such as that seen in the charge and Baryon number of quarks found in neutrons and Protons:

Thirds used in stating charges and Baryon number in Quarks
A series of 3-step recurrences each time we encounter a higher development

However, let us look further into the past and recognize that in the processes from which life emerged, the same pattern holds true:

3 steps in the strandedness of macromolecules:

  1. RNA = 1 strand.
  2. DNA = 2 strands.
  3. Protein/collagen helix = 3 strands.

In terms of the Triplet code's development, it is suggested that it too followed a triple scenario of development by way of a 1-code- 2-code 3-code transition, even if we can't see the first two, and we generally do not accept the notion of a spontaneous emergence of some function when nothing existed before hand. However, it should be noted that Evolution itself does not appear to be evolving. That is, simple processes of evolution remain simple and do not themselves exhibit greater complexity, or we might well encounter a loss of the model of Evolution which thousands of researchers have come to rely on as the most reliable and logical to further their own contemplations. If on the other hand evolutionary steps are themselves evolving, then the changes must be transitionally small enough to be overlooked and not described as an oddity..., an exception..., as the "odd man out", which is how humanity comes to find later views to be believed in as truths offering practical solutions to solve problems...

...For example, all religions apparently at one time or another, just like the Sciences, arts and music as well as multiple alternative ideas, have met with opposition and denounced as being odd, though terms such as strange, evil, bad, wrong, blasphemy, heretical, nonsense, irrational, insane, etc., have been used... unless a person insisting on the "odd" view is either jailed, ostracized, or killed. So too is the case for Germ theory, Evolution, X-rays, use of carbolic acid as an antiseptic, using elephants for warfare, maintaining a standing Army, developing a social security system, freeing slaves, giving Women, Black people and Native Americans the right to vote, allowing paroled and pardoned prisoners to vote, development of an education system for children called the "Kindergarten", use of amphibious vehicles for warfare, adoption of a gold standard, adoption of a social security system, adoption of Universal Healthcare, Adoption of a Democracy instead of a Monarchy, use of anesthesia, use of immunization against infectious diseases, use of psycho-therapy and medication instead of beatings, chains and isolation, use of surgical techniques instead of amputation, the telegraph ("sending messages through little wires"), the radio ("sending voices over the air without wires"), television (sending pictures through the air), use of gunpowder for warfare and not just fireworks, use of wood then metal to construct vehicles to fly through the air, creating a ship to travel underwater, flying to the moon, or even electing some idiot for a government position, etc...

Yet, despite all the digressions of consideration seen when considering change and innovation, if we look at biology in terms of incremental changes over time, and even though the larger picture of combined activities are described as an evolution, the incremental changes do not themselves evolve. They may become extinct or change in a measure to no longer be visible or act as they did on a previous occasion, but some of them remain... seemingly as they have always been since they became established as a viable entity, such that the Triplet code of DNA remains as a triplet code just as the three fundamental particles of atoms apparently remain the same. While we may not be able to see the actual steps which eventually became expressed as a recurring "three", we assume this to be the case, particularly in biology because we do not generally think of atomic particles as comprising a system of living activity... even though it may be on a very simple and unacknowledged scale. We humans simply do not permit ourselves to consider such a view as being "scientific" though our thoughts on occasion may well venture into moments of metaphysical considerations.

However, when we notice that Evolution in terms of individual steps do not themselves appear to be evolving, we must wonder if it is because they can't, or if they have a memory that causes their activity to "loop" like some piece of recurring music in one's thoughts, or that its makeup is such that it can only respond to environmental clues and cues which remain sustained, despite all of the pollution and alterations of the planet Earth's features caused by the activities of humanity. And more to the point of the present essay, why do significant basic events routinely occur in groups-of-three, despite all the routinely described distractions of multiplicity and plurality which some humans routinely become invested in commenting about?

And before this, let us look at the 3 steps of Photosynthesis, though the average person may not view the 3 items occurring in a 1-2-3 sequentiality:

  • 3 Requirements for Photosynthesis: Carbon Dioxide- Water- Sunlight
    1. Energy is captured from sunlight-
    2. The energy is then converted to chemical energy;
    3. The chemical energy is stored in organic molecules.
  • Photosynthesis in plants 1) oxidize water, 2) release oxygen (dioxygen) and 3) fix carbon dioxide.

Cellular respiration consists of a 3-step metabolic process:

  1. Glycolysis
  2. The tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle; also known as the Krebs, or citric acid, cycle).
  3. Oxidative phosphorylation (respiratory-chain phosphorylation).
3 step process of Photosynthesis

While citing the 3 steps of photosynthesis may appear to be simplistic to some readers who want to argue that there are multiple underlying chemistry-involved processes, let us distinguish the difference in how catalogue the references. If they didn't involve three generalized steps, why do we choose to use such an expression? Some rule-of-three for writing akin to that used in fairy tales or exhibiting a recurrence of activities in mythology? If the "three" is not important, why are there multiple uses of it? If we say because humans are copycats, so too is this behavior found in Nature. Every human is a copycat of some underlying "make a human" code, though we can note variations in physical features and attributes of personality and behavior. If using a triplet code over and over and over again billions of times is not a copycat, then what is it? Why doesn't it evolve into some other value (4, 5, 6...) if it isn't a valuable repetition?

This is a point to make. Being a part of Evolution is not itself Evolution. Evolution is the participation of multiple events which may not themselves evolve, though they came by way of some evolutionary process themselves. Evolution does not itself apparently evolve, because it to is part of some other process we have not yet acknowledged, nor in most cases even considered to exist. For example, humans are part of evolution, but do not themselves evolve into some other creature, despite all the views that a person "evolves" over their lifetime. The word "evolution" meaning change in habits and personality or overall personal development is not the same as the evolution of a species, or planet or solar system or galaxy... Apparently, Evolution involves multiple processes like numbers on a number line or letters of an alphabet, but the individual numbers and letters do not themselves represent a number line or alphabet. They do not change but can be used to describe the presence of an overall distinction we can label as change, whether denoted as increasing, staying the same, or decreasing.

In order to denote a change in value for letters, we have no assigned grouping method other than perhaps as consonants, vowels and supra-segmentals. Words on the other hand are grouped as 3-part variations of Subject- Object- Verb, called Word Order. The use of in-sentence punctuation marks such as the comma may further note a separation of three items in some circumstances. In the case of numbers, the use of a place-value notation system is used because the shorter quantity of numbers to letters and the use of numbers as quantifiers, requires a system where larger denominations be distinguished uniformly for both recognition and practicality of application and ease of learning. However, the simplicity of such systems are not routinely thought of as extensions of an activity occurring in Nature, or that Nature itself "prefers" to use simple patterns when indulging in the development of life which is itself a simple task, despite humanity's claims that it is very complex. Every time humanity comes upon something it doesn't readily grasp, it becomes labeled as complex, or as a mystery, or as being forbidden, or some other rationalization relative to the culture and era in which the purported mystery, magic, mayhem, etc., occurred. Humanity can be a very silly, superstitious, and suspicious creature, or we wouldn't have the religions, commerce, governments, mathematics, arts, music, sports, literature and sciences that we do.

And let us not fail to point out the "3" in relation to its attachment to the position of the Earth.

Along with Photosynthesis we see the common place environmental circumstances acting on early biological processes:

  • Night/Day pattern.
  • Left turning Earth (correlated with direction of spin in Amino acids).
  • Solar irradiation and its reflectivity (mirroring effect) brought about by polarization.

While we can observe and list multiple environmental events, only a select few may have affected an influence on that which we might label the history of biological development. For example when we look at and count the quantity of organelles in a cell, we assume that because they are present all of them are needed or Nature wouldn't have included them, or kept them if they were not... though the idea of vestigial organs comes to mind to offer a counter-point. However, the same line of thinking can be applied in thinking about the presumed processes of Evolution in that just because something appears to be a vital necessity, does not actually mean its absence would have an undesirable effect nor that Evolution can not "clean its own house" by instituting stream-lining activities to go along with its adopted 3-rule S.O.P. (standard operating procedure).

Since the notion of 3 "steps" is being used as part of the sequential developmental distinctions, permit me to use another analogy/metaphor so as to convey the overall idea into a simple representation that may be of some value. However, is biology using a 1-2... landing as it preferred pattern or a 1-2-3 landing, before the next group of three are implemented in their own valuation of sequentiality? No less, does biology use recognizable guard/guide rails?

Staircase image to reference developmental Evolution

There are of course other gradients of influence such as the lack of or a highly diminished state of Oxygen, temperature, gravity, etc... And even though different combinations may bring about the development of different materials found in biology, it is only a certain combination which has given us the complex forms of life living today. In other words, there are many possible paths, but only that trail or series of trails which combined in close proximity enough to produce life as it is being defined today... including viruses (shich are not considered to be alive in a reproductive sense).

A living cell contains relative proportions of three nucleotides which provides an index of the energy state of the cell:

  1. Adenosine- Mono- phosphate (AMP)
  2. Adenosine- Di- phosphate (ADP)
  3. Adneosine- Tri- phosphate (ATP)

Biological development occurs from simpler, less ordered processes to more order and greater complexity, yet the complexity has an origination in simple counting schemes. A rule-of-three can be seen being used by humans when we remark that Cellular Respiration consists of three metabolic processes:

Glycolysis. The tricarboxylic acid cycle (Three Carbon Acid cycle; also known as the Krebs, or citric acid, cycle). Oxidative phosphorylation (respiratory-chain phosphorylation).

Three early ecological roles of animals were as filter feeders, predators, and scavengers. Later on in biological development, we can cite 3 types of feeding among animals: Herbivore- Carnivore- Omnivore... and some consider that these three can be further subdivided into three categories, based on types of plants, types of meat and overall types of food available in a given environment.

Let us also note that both Bacteria and Eucaryotic cells have a triple-layered structure of lipids and proteins... yet, the recurrence of the value "3" often seen or can be recognized as a 1- 2- 3 maturational sequence over time, is not playing any role in the minds of so called professional biologists who act very much like the so-called medical professionals of the past who rejected the simple notion that washing one's hands could prevent disease, and more importantly, rejected Joseph Lister's "Germ" Theory because the idea of disease being caused by unseen bugs was too unbelievable yet they nonetheless believed in a holy ghost!

It is because biology exhibits several expressions of a 1-2-3 succession of development in certain key moments, that the idea of a potential 3rd consciousness comes to the forefront of consideration, when we further note the correlation between the usage of a 2nd step and the usage of ideas which reflect a similar "twoness" described as dualities or dichotomization, though alternative labels such as binary, dyad, dimer, etc., can be used. For example, as I have previously stated, a look at the three Germ layers arising in the 3rd (Eukayote) point of development in the 3 domains of life idea, provides a clear distinction which can be enumerated for a much easier identification. As such... what appears to be taking place is a higher valuation of biological development occurs after each 3-step grouping, as if Nature is undertaking its own brand of basic sequential counting, much in the manner that we use a comma as a point of demarcation between sets of three:

Place value notation after each set of three

I have considered exceptions to the idea of a 3rd consciousness potential being expressed as a natural "next stage" developmental sequence, by offering the opinion that it could very well be that other physiological aspects will move into a 3rd realm of development... but since so much of physiology is already exhibiting the "3" pattern and the consciousness is exhibiting a recurrent use of "twoness" (as well as historically observed periodic excursions into the "three"); saying that there is a potential for the brain/mind of humans to develop a third consciousness is a best guess with (assumed) supportive correlates, as defined by the examples already given.

Philosophical discussions of alternative interpretations does not diminish presumptions which can be reinforced by participating in a role of playing the Devil's advocate in an effort to deduce a larger consideration by way of an increased objectivity more clearly defining integrated subjectivities.

An example of "excurting" (taking an excursion into) alternative interpretations is when one is confronted by the expressions of plurality seen in plants and other life forms. If root and branching systems are interpreted as a multiplicity, and this multiplicity exchanged with the word plurality, does it argue against an underlying 1-2-3 developmental sequence or merely exhibit a constrained possibility, much in the manner we see three chromosomes creating abnormalities in humans... and sometimes interpreted to suggest that genetics is "testing the waters" of the environment to see whether a three-chormosome life style is more adaptive to changed environmental conditions where the presently viewed abnormality will not exist in an environment more suited to such a genetic situation?

Yep, we can get caught up in expressions of numerousity to the point we get confused and decide that an initial idea is wrong, or we can simply attest to the presence of an alternative and record it for a time when more information or alternative interpretations are more forthcoming. Indeed, there are exceptions one may find in one's work, but one must be flexible enough to include the exceptions with a question mark, noting that while mutations have a potentiality of appearance, the norm is anything but... unless this is an indication of a forthcoming trend with increased frequency.

Hence, it goes without saying... but I will anyway, it is only by making a visible catalogue of a pattern can we ascertain its scope and whether or not it is increasing, decreasing, or maintaining an equilibrium. An example of this appears to be the triple code of DNA/RNA and no one seems to have a problem with those whose personal lists define some parameters of occurrence:

  1. The triplet code is increasing due to the development of more life forms with it.
  2. It also decreases in terms of an extinction event.
  3. It is relatively stable in occurrence, though a researcher somewhere may catch the glimpse of some alternative enumerated code.

No one seems to have a problem when a single "three" item is listed and its underlying patterns revealed. And no one apparently has a problem if the same pattern is seen recurring in another biological aspect, or even if they make a list of some other pattern for comparison. No, there is no problem with one or two items under investigation because human consciousness from the time when human initiated a counting system... got used to the "one and two" sequence of mental enumeration. However, if someone such as myself comes along and decides to catalog MANY instances of the same pattern, a violent, or negative, or denial, or dismissive or disparaging barrage of commentary is exhibited. It's alright for you to think in terms of magic, mysticism, or metaphysics... such as religion, but the application of science being used to disclose overlooked patterns in the science, is abhorrently false. (Look at any subject and they are a practice of looking for patterns. Hence, Science is a search for patterns, just as all subjects are. However, they have trouble thinking in terms of a collective consciousness or collective cognition, which uses the same patterns in the context of a given subject.

One way of looking at the foregoing Place-value notation being used in biology is to look at it in reverse... such as by counting backwards or viewing the Place-value from left to right instead of the customary right to left as we add numbers. In this sense, let us view that a third consciousness exists and is represented, in this exercise, by being in the quadrillions position of a count, followed by a successive de-evolution of occurrences.

Uniqueness of recurring "3rd events" establishing point of distinction before next series of three begins, much like an expressed Place-value system of notation. Each successive 3rd position marks the point at which evolution develops a "higher" valuation of development:

Place-value notations of Biological development

Please do not be confused by the use of large enumerations in the image. They merely represent changes in the complexity of biological development over time by following a 123 overlapping rule-of-thumb which appears to be taking place over time. For example, somewhere in the distant past the 3 dimensions of existence occurred. We do not know if they came into existence at the same time or as a 1 dimension- 2 dimensions - 3 dimensions incrementalization. Likewise for the currency of 3-standard particles which make up an atom. We don't not know if the arrangement came into being as a whole unit or as a 1-2-3 particles incrementation. In addition, though we of today have the idea of 3 possible geometries for the Universe, does this actually mean 3 single variations or is the human mind trying to devise a conceptual appreciation of there being a 3-in-1 topography, but has not evolved to the necessary point because a 3rd consciousness development is being fought against becoming a standardized idea by standardized institutions that rely on a world view of standardized dichotomization? Despite all mathematically charged mental gymnastics the human brain can square dance with, we simply do not have the means for an accurate assessment.

Yes, in some processes such as photosynthesis we can count multiple steps exceeding a "three" value, but there are recurring themes of three in the whole description which parallels the same enumeration seen more decisively in later developmental scenarios. No less, while we do not have clear examples of a single or double coded RNA or DNA or some precursor to RNA, the human mind speculates that the triplet code arose from lesser numbered variants.

In one example of a recurring process called the calvin cycle, even though numerations other than the "3" are acknowledged, we find the "3" being reference... and it is this reference we can see recurring in other processes, but no other enumerated pattern is taking a similar debut on the human acknowledgement stage of perceptual decipherment as extending over time into more complex biologically important Evolutionary events.

The Calvin's Cycle and its use of 3

Yes, a person can count higher and use other methods by which to count without the use of a place-value system of notation, such as using an exponential expression seen in cellular divisions. But we are not seeing the use of such a formula in all processes of development. Nor do we seen RNA and DNA, for example, using exponential codes or fractionated codes like those seen in particle physics or exponentially large variants of themselves. A basic 1-2-3 rule-of-thumb can be seen, but is not being widely acknowledged, much less being brought up even in the most remotest conversational considerations, because no one in the biological field with any merit has said anything even if they have themselves acknowledged one or another singular aspect of the overall assemblage. If an idea appears to be too simple, they stay away from it because they want to be involved with research which the members of the Nobel Prize Committee are accustomed to pay attention towards based on the vogue of chatter being heard as being of primary or a presumed break through; even though the committee itself limits winners to 3 in any category, yet the cognitive parallel to other thematic interests remain oblivious to their purview.

Page Initiated: Sunday, 15th December, 2024... 11:47 AM
Initial Posting: Tuesday, 17th December, 2024... 1:46 PM
Updated Posting: Friday, 20th December, 2024... 6:13 AM