(Realization of Trichotomic Thinking)
→→→ Tripartite Collection 1 ←←←
| EP 1 EP 1b |
EP 2 EP 2b |
EP 3 EP 3b |
EP 4 | EP 5 | EP 6 |
| EP 7 | EP 8 | EP 9 EP 9b |
EP 10 EP 10b |
EP 11 EP 11b |
EP 12 EP 12b |
Trichotomizologists as of Nov. 22, 2024
The repetition of the genetic code and the repetition of amino acids describes a biological process akin to a production/assembly line. No less, the repetition of religious idiocy to define the processes of life is a tell-tale sign we are dealing with the dynamics of a psyche which exhibits a cyclicity... suggesting consciousness may likewise follow suit, except that it is not customary for us to think of Consciousness as exhibiting stages of development and that the overall development similarly represents some model of a three-patterned design; whether the design is as yet complete in some, most or even all of humanity because it is part of a larger evolutionary characteristic. In other words, if Consciousness develops similarly to the three Germ layers, is it in the first, second, or third stage of its evolution? No less, do individuals experience different levels as transitions in their life time or is the process like an overlapping cacoon? Does one stage inter-mesh into the others? If it is a cacoon-like episodic journey, how do we define the stages or steps, if such an idea is so foreign to the thinking of most people, its adopted acknowledgment might be cause for concern among traditional institutions who do not incorporate a fluidic type of philosophy?
I do not want to be seen as just another person engaging in pseudo-science or some scienceless speculative metaphysics about an idea referencing some supposed higher plane of existence, some of which are referenced as states of pure energy or pure consciousness, or some other purity, whatever such ideas actually mean in terms of realism. However, the purpose of some speculative ideas do lead us towards a discovery of testable perspectives which ultimately produce what we otherwise consider to be a fact. Theories and hypothesis are fine, so long as we are eventually directed along the path of developing a means to test the ideas, and not merely claim that belief and faith are validation enough. At the present, the idea of a 3rd consciousness is speculative, but the presence of persistent dualities being used in several Institutional philosophies is not. The idea of a 3rd consciousness as part of an identifiable process of trichotomization in biology towards more complexity. This correlation between biological processes, the development of the brain and associated mind material and mental activity exhibiting recurring patterns, invites the assumption that we may be dealing with an unrecognized potentiality which may well have to be realized as existing in order for us to make use of the ability waiting in the wings, so to speak.
Humans do not know how far they can throw a spear, how fast they can run, or what they can create... unless they make an effort to practice some quality. Hence, if the idea of a 3rd consciousness is a viable one, let us acknowledge the possibility and seek to understand the implications for such an existence and thus begin to develop exercise routines to get it into some worthwhile shape, instead of leaving it to the haphazard teaching methods so customary of a civilization whose major institutions are stuck in the muck with a perspective of duality. The development of a 3rd Consciousness need not be left to the road of hard knocks, school of hard knocks, or a society with its variable currencies of being knocked down, dragged out, and then beat up some more by the very institutions that were initially proposed to assist the public.
While the primary Institution presently under the microscope is Psychology with its persistent use of dualities, another is Mathematics. In both cases, however, there are practicing experts who pay witness to the problem of their orientations yet do not know how to define it in terms relevant to the production of a new theory. In other words, both are fields of study who have had experts readily observant of problems (typically involving the use of dualites/dichotomies), but have not been able to look beyond the problem to recognize the idea of trichotomization. Instead, what we see is generation after generation after generation of both psychologists and Mathematicians who resort to compromise instead of thinking to trichotomize. On the one hand Psychologists recognize the limitations of their present theories established on the foundations of dualities, and on the other hand we see Mathematicians also recognizing problems with trying to establish systems of logic in line with some mathematical structure such as for example, those attempted by Russell, Frege, and Zermelo. Here is a short reference to the recognition of a problem in mathematics but not that it stems from an underlying issue based on dualities:
Russell's paradox: (A) statement in set theory, devised by the English mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell, that demonstrated a flaw in earlier efforts to axiomatize the subject.
Russell found the paradox in 1901 and communicated it in a letter to the German mathematician-logician Gottlob Frege in 1902. Russell's letter demonstrated an inconsistency in Frege's axiomatic system of set theory by deriving a paradox within it. (The German mathematician Ernst Zermelo had found the same paradox independently; since it could not be produced in his own axiomatic system of set theory, he did not publish the paradox.)
Frege had constructed a logical system employing an unrestricted comprehension principle. The comprehension principle is the statement that, given any condition expressible by a formula Φ(x), it is possible to form the set of all sets x meeting that condition, denoted {x | Φ(x)}. For example, the set of all sets—the universal set—would be {x | x = x}.
It was noticed in the early days of set theory, however, that a completely unrestricted comprehension principle led to serious difficulties. In particular, Russell observed that it allowed the formation of {x | x ∉ x}, the set of all non-self-membered sets, by taking Φ(x) to be the formula x ∉ x. Is this set—call it R—a member of itself? If it is a member of itself, then it must meet the condition of its not being a member of itself. But if it is not a member of itself, then it precisely meets the condition of being a member of itself. This impossible situation is called Russell's paradox.
The significance of Russell's paradox is that it demonstrates in a simple and convincing way that one cannot both hold that there is meaningful totality of all sets and also allow an unfettered comprehension principle to construct sets that must then belong to that totality. (Russell spoke of this situation as a "vicious circle.") ["Russell's paradox." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.]
The "Vicious Circle" is an unrecognized reference to the persistence of dualities used in Mathematics as a foundation of perception and world-view orientation. However, it exists in other institutions as well, and can be argued that as a persistence, it interferes with the greater potential of humanity... and it is a potentiality that can not be realized until the possibility of the potentiality is recognized as a possibility.
The vicious circularity created by dualities is an expressed reference to the study of language as a system of philosophy in and of itself. Language creates the paradoxical nature of thought content because language often expresses the persistent presence of duality on the mind of a person who may largely be unaware their system of philosophy, of logic, relies heavily on a tradition reinforced with dualities... many, if not all having a formative beginning in physical dimensions of experience such as hot/cold, pain/no pain, hunger/satiety, light/darkness, etc...
Corner stones if not the primary foundation stones for both Psychology and Mathematics is said to come from Philosophy and it comes from an attempted understanding of language whether one is "speaking" to oneself in thought or with another is some contextual discourse. Nonetheless, in order to point out the ideas of duality and trichotomy, both mathematics and psychology are use in helping to ascertain the presence of a presumed pattern. In both and all cases we come face to face with a task of looking into the realms of Language and Mathematics and Psychology, though we could list all other subjects as well, since symbols and sounds exhibit patterns which frequently become translated into verbalized references... though some, such in the case of music, take on another wardrobe for those attuned to patterned resonances. And let me not fail to mention that in an effort to avoid wrong or bad use of words that can be misinterpreted, there is the practice by some Asian practitioners (of the eightfold path in Buddhism) to have the right speech.
Let us first take a few steps into the field of the Philosophy of Language:
...The evidently close connection between language and thought does not imply that there can be no thought without language. Although some philosophers and linguists have embraced this view, most regard it as implausible. Prelinguistic infants and at least the higher primates, for example, can solve quite complex problems, such as those involving spatial memory. This indicates real thinking, and it suggests the use of systems of representation—"maps" or "models" of the world—encoded in nonlinguistic form. Similarly, among human adults, artistic or musical thought does not demand specifically linguistic expression: it may be purely visual or auditory. A more reasonable hypothesis regarding the connection between language and thought, therefore, might be the following: first, all thought requires representation of one kind or another; second, whatever may be the powers of nonlinguistic representation that human adults share with human infants and some other animals, those powers are immensely increased by the use of language.
The "mist and veil of words":
The powers and abilities conferred by the use of language entail cognitive successes of various kinds. But language may also be the source of cognitive failures, of course. The idea that language is potentially misleading is familiar from many practical contexts, perhaps especially politics. The same danger exists everywhere, however, including in scholarly and scientific research. In scriptural interpretation, for example, it is imperative to distinguish true interpretations of a text from false ones; this in turn requires thinking about the stability of linguistic meaning and about the use of analogy, metaphor, and allegory in textual analysis. Often the danger is less that meanings may be misidentified than that the text may be misconceived through alien categories entrenched (and thus unnoticed) in the scholar's own language. The same worries apply to the interpretation of works of literature, legal documents, and scientific treatises.
The "mist and veil of words," as the Irish philosopher George Berkeley (1685–1753) described it, is a traditional theme in the history of philosophy. Confucius (551–479 BC), for example, held that, when words go wrong, there is no limit to what else may go wrong with them; for this reason, "the civilized person is anything but casual in what he says." This view is often associated with pessimism about the usefulness of natural language as a tool for acquiring and formulating knowledge; it has also inspired efforts by some philosophers and linguists to construct an "ideal" language–i.e., one that would be semantically or logically "transparent." The most celebrated of these projects was undertaken by the great German polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), who envisioned a "universal characteristic" that would enable people to settle their disputes through a process of pure calculation, analogous to the factoring of numbers. In the early 20th century the rapid development of modern mathematical logic (see formal logic) similarly inspired the idea of a language in which grammatical form would be a sure guide to meaning, so that the inferences that could legitimately be drawn from propositions would be clearly visible on their surface.
Outside philosophy there have often been calls for replacing specialized professional idioms with "plain" language, which is always presumed to be free of obscurity and therefore immune to abuse. There is often something sinister about such movements, however; thus, the English writer George Orwell (1903–50), initially an enthusiast, turned against the idea in his novel 1984 (1949), which featured the thought-controlling "Newspeak." Yet he continued to hold the doubtful ideal of a language as "clear as a windowpane," through which facts would transparently reveal themselves. (Author of Article: Simon W. Blackburn, Professor of Philosophy, University of Cambridge. Author of Truth: A Guide and others.; "language, philosophy of." Encyclopæl;dia Britannica, 2013.)
Let us first take a few steps into the field of the Philosophy of Mathematics:
Introduction (to Philosophy of Mathematics):
Branch of philosophy that is concerned with two major questions: one concerning the meanings of ordinary mathematical sentences and the other concerning the issue of whether abstract objects exist. The first is a straightforward question of interpretation: What is the best way to interpret standard mathematical sentences and theories? In other words, what is really meant by ordinary mathematical sentences such as:
- "3 is prime"
- "2 + 2 = 4"
- "There are infinitely many prime numbers."
Thus, a central task of the philosophy of mathematics is to construct a semantic theory for the language of mathematics. Semantics is concerned with what certain expressions mean (or refer to) in ordinary discourse. So, for instance, the claim that in English the term Mars denotes the Mississippi River is a false semantic theory; and the claim that in English Mars denotes the fourth planet from the Sun is a true semantic theory. Thus, to say that philosophers of mathematics are interested in figuring out how to interpret mathematical sentences is just to say that they want to provide a semantic theory for the language of mathematics.
Philosophers are interested in this question for two main reasons: 1) it is not at all obvious what the right answer is, and 2) the various answers seem to have deep philosophical implications. More specifically, different interpretations of mathematics seem to produce different metaphysical views about the nature of reality. These points can be brought out by looking at the sentences of arithmetic, which seem to make straightforward claims about certain objects. Consider, for instance, the sentence "4 is even." This seems to be a simple subject-predicate sentence of the form "S is P"—like, for instance, the sentence "The Moon is round." This latter sentence makes a straightforward claim about the Moon, and likewise, "4 is even" seems to make a straightforward claim about the number 4. This, however, is where philosophers get puzzled. For it is not clear what the number 4 is supposed to be. What kind of thing is a number? Some philosophers (antirealists) have responded here with disbelief—according to them, there are simply no such things as numbers. Others (realists) think that there are such things as numbers (as well as other mathematical objects). Among the realists, however, there are several different views of what kind of thing a number is. Some realists think that numbers are mental objects (something like ideas in people's heads). Other realists claim that numbers exist outside of people's heads, as features of the physical world. There is, however, a third view of the nature of numbers, known as Platonism or mathematical Platonism, that has been more popular in the history of philosophy. This is the view that numbers are abstract objects, where an abstract object is both nonphysical and nonmental. According to Platonists, abstract objects exist but not anywhere in the physical world or in people's minds. In fact, they do not exist in space and time at all.
In what follows, more will be said to clarify exactly what Platonists have in mind by an abstract object. However, it is important to note that many philosophers simply do not believe in abstract objects; they think that to believe in abstract objects—objects that are wholly nonspatiotemporal, nonphysical, and nonmental—is to believe in weird, occult entities. In fact, the question of whether abstract objects exist is one of the oldest and most controversial questions of philosophy. The view that there do exist such things goes back to Plato, and serious resistance to the view can be traced back at least to Aristotle. This ongoing controversy has survived for more than 2,000 years.
The second major question with which the philosophy of mathematics is concerned is this: "Do abstract objects exist?" This question is deeply related to the semantic question about how the sentences and theories of mathematics should be interpreted. For if Platonism is right that the best interpretation of mathematics is that sentences such as "4 is even" are about abstract objects (and it will become clear below that there are some very good reasons for endorsing this interpretation), and if (what seems pretty obvious) sentences such as "4 is even" are true, then it would seem natural to endorse the view that abstract objects exist. (Article by Mark Balaguer, Professor of Philosophy, California State University, Los Angeles. Author of Platonism and Anti-Platonism in Mathematics.; "mathematics, philosophy of." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
When we arrive at an attempt to provide some excerpt which best describes a "Philosophy of Psychology", we find that it can have as many interpretations as Psychology does for categories of mental illness. They are quite varied but in general the philosophy deals with the history of psychology and an exploration into what constitutes the idea of a Psychology in the first place. Nonetheless, here are 3 references which may be of interest to some readers:
Philosophy of psychology is concerned with the history and foundations of psychology. It deals with both epistemological and ontological issues and shares interests with other fields, including philosophy of mind and theoretical psychology. Philosophical and theoretical psychology are intimately tied and are therefore sometimes used interchangeably or used together. However, philosophy of psychology relies more on debates general to philosophy and on philosophical methods, whereas theoretical psychology draws on multiple areas. (Philosophy of Psychology)
Psychology as a science dates back at least to Aristotle’s De Anima (4th century BCE). During the 17th century scientific revolution, just as physics and astronomy had been reformed by changing concepts of explanation, attempts were made to reform psychology by following new explanatory practices. However, it was only in the 19th century that psychology emerged as a full-fledged quantitative science, and only in the 20th that philosophy of psychology emerged as a field distinct from psychology itself. In this introductory week, we survey the changing explanatory practices which define the early history of psychology, from Aristotle’s teleological account, through Descartes’ mechanisms, and Hume’s associationism. We also discuss the difference between philosophy of psychology and philosophy of mind. (What is (philosophy of) psychology?)
Psychology aims to give us a scientific account of how the mind works. But what does it mean to have a science of the mental, and what sort of picture of the mind emerges from our best psychological theories? This book addresses these philosophical puzzles in a way that is accessible to readers with little or no background in psychology or neuroscience. Using clear and detailed case studies and drawing on up-to-date empirical research, it examines perception and action, the link between attention and consciousness, the modularity of mind, how we understand other minds, and the influence of language on thought, as well as the relationships among mind, brain, body, and world. The result is an integrated and comprehensive overview of much of the architecture of the mind, which will be valuable for both students and specialists in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science. (An Introduction to the Philosophy of Psychology)
In the present Psychodynamic series, I can not escape from providing bits and pieces of what others think about Psychology, in order to show how infrequent the perspective about a persistence of duality is absent, as well as the absence of a notion of trichotomization, including a new view of Consciousness tied to recognizable recurrent patterns leading towards greater complexity in developmental biology. As such...
Above all, how do we test for the presumed sequences if the idea of a consciousness with stages is not thought of because it is not permitted an origination of appearance due to competing patterns of thinking such as dualities? A repetitious perspective of dualities no doubt has a cyclicity like a playground's merry-go-round which is difficult for anyone to get onto unless they too adopt a similar circularity of thinking? (Another analogy is the rhytm of thinking that is needed to adopt in order to enter into a rope being turned so that one can take a turn at jumping, be it a single rope or two, sometimes referred to as double dutch.) And if all of society is a mixture of business and other social cycles which inter-mesh with one another by way of an unrecognized structure of complementary and competing dualities, thus creating a mechanical-like interactivity, what then of those who begin to think alternatively?
Indeed, how did a triplet come to dominate when one might think the exponential doubling of cellular division during growth was the most prominent and dominant biological feature? Is the resulting "threeness" of the triplet code, three germ layers, triplet micro-tubules, 3 main types of DNA and RNA, triadic structure of human anatomy, triple phosphate energy source, etc... due themselves to some coded directive such as Earth being the third planet or three families of fundamental forces or the triple strobe-light effect of the Sun over billions of years? Imagine if everything in the Universe stopped at a "two-pattern". There would be no triple DNA from which arose the one, then two and then the third germ layer out of which complex life forms arose like humans. This is why I am saying that the persistent usage of dualities in Psychology is an indication humanity is stuck in the muck. When there doesn't even exist the notion of Trichotomization except in some silly duality formulization called an obsessive-compulsive characteristic, why in the world should we take Psychology seriously, and for that matter either Philosophy and Mathematics as well?
Trichotomization exists but the leading Institutions in an out of colleges are oblivious to it! How can anyone entertain the idea of a 3rd consciousness when its attachment to a 1-2-3 developmental scenario in biology is not recognized! Heaven forbid that others and myself view the world from a reality that sees the currencies of duality being used in religion, psychology, sports, philosophy, mathematics, music, art and computer technology as orientations which are short-changing humanity!
Let us view protests and revolutions from the perspective that what we are seeing are tell-tale indications of a developing consciousness into a 3rd realm, but that not all the players involved are experiencing the same intensity or even an actual third realm, but attach themselves to whatever mode and manner of expression allows them the latitude to be different, to think differently, and to associate with others who may not actually share their views in the same way, but nonetheless are experiencing a change that may never be fully defined to their satisfaction, but at least has some measurable beginning. Indeed, some of them may simply be experiencing a fuller expression of a 1st or 2nd stage consciousness, but are nonetheless exuberantly poised to be supportive of whatever the leadership of the group proposes as a good cause.
Yet, while speaking of a third consciousness is quite easy, we still need an actual measurement between the three (1st, 2nd, 3rd) models, unless this present discussion is part of the Evolutionary development which enables us to make a clearer distinction. While we can see there are 1-2-3 variations of development in biology which suggests that life follows this trend towards greater complexity, and that consciousness has a biological developmental role in terms of the brain; it remains a speculative suggestion and correlation that we actually have a 3rd consciousness, even though at times I may speak in terms of such an idea as if it were an actuality. However, if philosophers in the past did not speculate about the different dimensions of life, we would not have any of the sciences we do today. This includes physics and higher mathematics as well as biology, music, art, architecture, anthropology, botany, medicine, food crops, industrialization, etc...
Not a single subject has ventured deeply into an attempted understanding of trichotomization, though it crops up in different forms and formulas such as Hitler's idea of a 3rd Reich, the French 3rd Republic, Trifectas in various sports, three-divisioned governments, I-Ching Triads, 3 Olympic medals, 3 persons to a Noble prize, 3rd species idea of some homosexuals, Trinary code of Quantum computing, Third Way orientations, etc...
Because Psychology has a dedicated persistent usage of dualitization in teaching and clinical practice, we can not rely upon its judgment when it is confronted by a repetition of "threes". The phenomena of threes can be felt as a threat to its existence as a dominant perspective. The Same goes for Mathematics and its often knee-jerk response by calling threes research Numerology. It too can feel that the presence of a dominant pattern that differs from its core model is a threat. No less, we can not rely on the negative comments issued by any Institution including Philosophy because of their inherent biases brought on by exhibiting dominant orientations to the usage of dualities.
With respect to those who argue for the presence of some pluralization as being "more" (greater) than the three and thus suggest consciousness may have more than three stages, we should not overlook that ancient humans used pluralization as a means of exhibiting a 3rd realization such as when developing a counting system and as a means of confronting the use of duos or twins as reigning entities of a religious perspective. Instead of having a two-person godhead, one could advocate multiple gods and thus suppress or annihilate the power such "two"-based ideas had. However, human ego eventually came to express the presence of a single, all seeing... all knowing... all powerful god. In other words, the use of a definition exhibiting a 3 in 1 character. In short, the idea of a 3rd position came to be referenced by different means such as plurality and singularity.
Page Initiated: Saturday, 8th February, 2025... 5:11 AMInitial Posting: Friday, 14th February, 2025... 7:10 AM