page 15
Progressive Thinkers as of 12/1/2022
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In a "1- 2- Many" model of interpretation, there is the need for determining what particularities of ideas are to be associated as linguistic alternatives, though the language employed in a given context by a given idea may suggest a different placement because the scripting presents us with a visual appearance more conducive to another of the three categorizations. For example, a person may be using the terms 2, 1, 0 which to some views might suggest no logical placement in a literally viewed "1- 2- Many" model, and yet the usage of the terms might well say otherwise. Another example might be to encounter the idea of "nothingness" as having 3 or more or 2 or less definitively different values. For example, let us categorize nothingness in three different but distinct ways, though you might provide alternatives from where and when you are sitting in history. This page may be in fact speaking to someone more than a century from now:
- Nothingness in the ordinary sense of absence or loss.
- Nothingness of a presumed void, but some may describe this type of nothingness as a somethingness nonetheless.
- Nothingness which exists but we may not be able to directly perceive by unaided senses.
Different researchers may decide to place them into different characterizations within the "1- 2- Many" model frame, and yet all of them find a commonality of using such a model. However, this does not mean a given adoption of a particular categorization will be applicable elsewhere. Thus identifying a possible "1- 2- Many" model of the model itself, if not the existence of yet a third model of the same also. In other words the "1- 2- Many" model can be subjected to itself and then this can also be subjected to yet another "1- 2- Many" modeling.
Denial of Not Being:
In Eleatic philosophy, the assertion of the monistic philosopher Parmenides of Elea that only Being exists and that Not-Being is not, and can never be. Being is necessarily described as one, unique, unborn and indestructible, and immovable. The opposite of Being is Not-Being (to me- eon), which for the Eleatics meant absolute nothingness, the total negation of Being; hence, Not-Being can never be. Parmenides knew that the assertion that Not-Being also exists must be wrong, although no formal logic existed that would enable him to say precisely what was wrong with it. But he was nonetheless certain about his position: "For you cannot know Not-Being (to me- eon), nor even say it."
The problem of the existence of total nothingness, or "the void" (Greek: kenon), was important in the theoretical foundations of Greek atomism, which asserted, despite the seemingly rigorous logic of the Eleatics, that nothingness must in fact exist. The Eleatic denial of the void is sometimes seen as a direct refutation of an earlier Pythagorean view, a pre-Parmenidean atomism asserting that a kind of Not-Being, understood as a cosmic air, exists. No documentary evidence for such a view has survived, however.
In the 20th century the question was treated in a revolutionary way by the German existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger, who summarized the function of Not-Being in the neologistic words das Nichts nichtet "Not-Being, or Nothingness, Denied". ("Not-Being, denial of." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
Notice in the last sentence the two-word phrase "Not-Being" was transformed by Heidegger's language into a three-word phrase "das Nichts nichtet", if not intentionally, than as an unrecognized 'actionability' of the language he was using. For example, in English a person may use the three-patterned phrase of "I love you", whereas in French it is a two-patterned "je t'aime" and Spanish it is another 2-patterned expression: "te quiero". The "2 versus 3" perspective can mean the difference in how accurately one places the concept within a "1- 2- Many" model.
In the following excerpt, Heidegger uses the terms "manifold" and "fundamental" that can be interpreted as "Many and One"... in other words, he was seeking a way to reconcile the presence of two seemingly contradictions without being aware of the existence of a "1- 2- Many" theme existing as a cognitive replay among individuals and groups; such as a culture using the theme "Third Reich" as a Nationally unifying "Many into one" achievement to usher in a new age, a new sense of being, a new consciousness with which to explore potentially greater achievements. Hitler's Third Reich sought to create its own "oneness", or a Many into One. Heidegger's ideas of "world," "everydayness," and "Being-with-others" is one that can be interpreted as a Natural or Nature philosophy in the sense that humans... the individual, are very much a part of Nature and the Natural order of things as most people "Naturally" perceive, and are therefore a colloquialism (fundamental and non-abstract part) of cognition... of human thinking... of the human "being" as an existing life form and as a reality which can be taken at face value and not subjected to some model of philosophical abstraction where intellectualization engages in some sort of chess game.
Heidegger's masterpiece, Sein und Zeit (Being and Time), was published in 1927 (Like Dante Alighieri using the common language of the Italian people instead of Latin, Heidegger avoided traditional philosophical terminology in favour of neologisms derived from colloquial German, most notably Dasein (literally, "being-there"). Being and Time began with a traditional ontological question, which Heidegger formulated as the Seinsfrage, or the "question of Being." In an essay first published in 1963, My Way to Phenomenology, Heidegger put the Seinsfrage as follows:
- "If Being is predicated in manifold meanings,
- Then what is its leading fundamental meaning?
- What does Being mean?"
(H.O.B. note: the word "manifold" can be associated with "Many", the word "fundamental" can be associated with "1", and the question the meaning of 'Being' can be viewed as the "2", or in this case, the centrality, though the sentence structuring places them in a different order If we put them in a "1- 2- Many" model order, we have the following arrangement and re-wording to produce three questions:)
- What is its leading fundamental meaning?
- What does Being mean?
- Is Being Predicated in manifold meanings?
If we now use the "1- 2- Many" model in a syllogistic format:
- Being is the leading fundamental meaning. (Major Premise)
- The meaning of Being is not (explicitly) known. (Minor Premise)
- Being is predicated in manifold meanings. (Conclusion)
Using the three lines as puzzle pieces or Rubik's cube colors (etc.), one can create different illustrations of thought processing, some of which may appear to be illogical or even unrealistic from where the reader is presently sitting.
If, in other words, there are many kinds of Being, or many senses in which existence may be predicated of a thing, what is the most fundamental kind of Being, the kind that may be predicated of all things? In order to address this question properly, Heidegger found it necessary to undertake a preliminary phenomenological investigation of the Being of the human individual, which he called Dasein. In this endeavour he ventured onto philosophical ground that was entirely untrodden. ("Heidegger, Martin." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
By mentioning Dante Alighieri in the foregoing, I can include a reference to his Divine comedy, in which it is arranged in a multiple "threes" fashion:
Dante's genius found its fullest development in his Commedia (written c. 1308–21; The Divine Comedy), an allegorical poem in terza rima (stanzas of three lines of 11 syllables each, rhyming aba, bcb, cdc, etc.), the literary masterpiece of the Middle Ages and one of the greatest products of any human mind. The central allegory of the poem was essentially medieval, taking the form of a journey through the worlds beyond the grave, with, as guides, the Roman poet Virgil and the lady of the Vita nuova, Beatrice, who symbolize reason and faith, respectively. The poem is divided into three cantiche, or narrative sections: Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. Each section contains 33 cantos, with the very first canto serving as an overall prologue. Dante, through his experiences and encounters on the journey, gains understanding of the gradations of damnation, expiation, and beatitude, and the climax of the poem is his momentary vision of God. The greatness of the poem lies in its complex imaginative power of construction, inexhaustible wealth of poetry, and continuing significance of spiritual meanings. It is remarkable that Dante's reputation suffered a 400-year eclipse after enjoying immediate popularity. It was revived in the Romantic period, and his work continues to influence modern poets both inside and outside of Italy. ("Italian literature." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
The basic structural component of The Divine Comedy is the canto. The poem consists of 100 cantos, which are grouped together into three sections, or canticles, Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. Technically there are 33 cantos in each canticle and one additional canto, contained in the Inferno, which serves as an introduction to the entire poem. For the most part the cantos range from about 136 to about 151 lines. The poem's rhyme scheme is the terza rima (aba, bcb, cdc, etc.) Thus, the divine number of three is present in every part of the work. ("Dante." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
One is either encouraged to join in the Oneness whereas in other perspectives this is flip-flopped and it is viewed that the Oneness already exists in everyone. In any case, duality is being used to move between the idea of singularity and multiplicity, each cycle of a believed-in transcendence of possible achievement, typically obtainable in the views of believers if one submits to a given retinue of behavior... very often involving the sacrifice, the giving, the bestowment, the charitableness, the tithing, the offering, the tax, (or whatever label is used) to provide an excuse, a reason, which helps in the survival of a given set of belief practitioners.
Let us take an example... in present day terms there are those who think they are at the threshold of developing a new consciousness by believing in the "oneness" of homosexuality/Lesbianism, while others think this is being achieved by catering to the view of some model of bisexuality, and others think that some type of multiplicity is best to achieve some greater openness, some greater or lofted sense of humanity, of intelligence, of compassion, of righteousness. Such expressions of the "1- 2- Many" are individual expressions of an underlying consciousness which has turned towards an inner world, and appears to be a larger reality of personal accomplishment. But it is not a species-wide involvement of consciousness development to a presumed higher plane of existence. It is the language of a personal consciousness and not that which can be applied to the whole of humanity in terms of expanding the consciousness of a Nation or of a species by its observed practices.
The idea that duality is the go-between, the middle-man, the bridge between conceptual frames of singularity and Multiplicity does not mean it has to be used, since the singularity/multiplicity is itself a dichotomy. Whereas the "three" might well be described as the outermost edge of a higher consciousness development, how is the next cycle to be better if the cultural environments of the world are filled with laws and institutions which want to maintain the equilibrium of an old higher consciousness achievement? If all social leaders can not grasp the presence of a New Age that can unfold if we want it to, but they either don't want it to or do not have the vision to permit its expression, then individualized achievements of a higher consciousness will be sought, only to find that they too are confined to a level of expression permitted within the parameters of those who claim a like-mindedness, but do not actually share an ability to achieve it. When humanity lives in a world culture which does not seek to achieve a higher consciousness, that many social leaders don't even have the slightest contemplative notion of what this might mean; how is it possible for humanity to grow beyond its present fingertips unless it is by way of being forced, by injury, accident, or disease?
So where does the "Higher Consciousness" cycle come from? Is it little more than an expression of some underlying biological process connected with survival, but has no real existence... even though our description of the unrecognized biological activity seduces us to believe otherwise? For example, a person may be intelligent enough to convince themselves to commit suicide, but are not instructed to think about being intelligent enough to outwit themselves in this proposed commitment. In other words, if you are intelligent enough to convince yourself that killing yourself is the right thing to do, though a question of morality or one's short (human) life span may not come into review during such contemplations; then you should be intelligent enough to talk yourself out of such a commitment. Persuasive thoughts should not be permitted to persuade you into thinking they are a god you must defer to without question or applying a different, counter-logic to the stream of consciousness speaking to you in such convincing terms.
If the 1- 2- Many cycle of thought involved in the development of a defined higher consciousness is the mere exercise of an underlying biological activity as one might describe one's body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, etc., then is it possible to fine-tune the cycle as one might develop the physical strength, stamina, skill for a given task? Can we create the circumstances which will help assist all of humanity into such a condition? Yet, is there a possibility for humanity to actually develop a higher consciousness as described by that to be achieved beyond the human condition, or is this mere rationalization as part of the survival strategy of a species living under conditions of an incremental deterioration?
While some might want to consider that the idea of three types of consciousness acts like a 3-legged stool which expresses symmetry, what if this idea is a knee-jerk reaction being performed by the mind, and the usage of three in this context in this way is like repeating an echo from the depths of a chamber where both language and consciousness arose in... (metaphorically speaking)? The first three are Sigmund Freud's variety, the next is a hodge/podge of collected ideas using different prefixes:
- Unconsciousness (asleep, comatose or dead)
- pre-consciousness (dreaming, inebriated, drugged)
- Consciousness (vigilant, aware, sociableness)
- Inferior consciousness, (un/sub/pre/proto/lst, Below average)
- "common-erior") consciousness, (individually described, "socially oriented"), Average
- Superior consciousness, Super/Hyper/Ultra/Exceptional, Genius, Above average
Is Consciousness the symmetrical counter-part to Language? Or should we switch this around? Or are they one side of an unrecognized coin and we have yet been able to see... much less label a counter-part to them, since such a counter-part is in the making... to a higher degree in some than others? It should not be difficult to conceptualize the idea that Language and Consciousness may well be the symmetrical counter-part to one another... since humans are a bilateral creature, and even though there are organs which are singular... or so we think and might want to say for example, that the liver is singular even though it has a rough triangular shape (commonly referred to as a wedge-shape), triangular ligaments and otherwise might look to the artistically inclined like a snail dragging its shell. Then again, if we are to play a game of intellectual assessing the developmental coincidence of anatomical structures to the activities of language and consciousness, do we conclude from their emergence in behavior as an indication that they appeared after the development of physical structures and therefore should not be committed to a one-to-one correspondence? In other words, there is not valued parity to be accurately accessed? While such questions and their type may vex some readers, they are important considerations just as in choosing which bait will be used at which fishing hole containing an assumed type of fish one is after... or simply fishing for any type of fish... though all have a similar body plan?
Anyway, the point here is to consider whether or not we are dealing with a phenomena of symmetry when regarding Language and Consciousness or is it best to consider both separate and accept the idea of a tripod floor plan for both, even though language is not viewed as having three types. There are multiple kinds (English, Chinese, Russian, Icelandic, Spanish, etc.), but no one has put forth the notion that there are three types as we see when consciousness is discussed. Unless of course we want to think in terms of:
- Proto/Simple/ "Mother" tongue
- Adult babbling/ Tower of Babble- (the stage of speaking humanity is in at the present)
- Superior Language/communication (Whether it be some sort of universal speech, mental telepathy, or whatever)
While some readers may think that all-things "spiritual" represent some ultimate form of consciousness and language, to me this is just gibberish, just like so much of the nonsense heard or read about Eastern philosophy. While in the context of the culture the views may be accepted as a general truth or even dogma, and duly play an important role in many lives who live by the ideas being espoused, for those not living in such a context we can be inclined towards an insensitivity and call it rubbish, though if we were in the same situation we too might adopt the standards of thought... hence th old expression: While in Rome... (do as the Romans do), just as one might become more savage or saintly depending on the currency of survival needs, and not necessarily that such views have some Universally applicable truth without mangling definitions into generalizations. However, my comment that "to me it sounds like the C-rap being expressed by the young of today, needs to viewed in a larger philosophical sense, that is it the reader is enabled to do so.
And yes, I put a "C" in front of the so-called musical genre called "Rap". I don't care whether partitioners espouse some "three" usage or formula. The expressions come across like some arrogant ignorance attempting to exercise some wannabe sophistication of an intellectual aptitude which doesn't exist, but pretences itself to be as if there is a deeper sense of reality being revealed as one might presume to be the case when different people read the same poem or different people from different backgrounds are asked to do a book report on a comic book. Such expressions only detail the presence of an underlying behaviorally expressed minimalist cognitive pattern which has been repeated in history in different ways and that we as a species do not understand in the larger context of identifying some meaning other than the nonsense which has been adopted (albeit found to be useful for those who use it in their context). The research I've uncovered suggests their usage of the "three" supports such views as being generated and not the other way around. In other words, uncovering the "three" or some other pattern in multiple subjects doesn't confirm the usage of such for a particular religion or Eastern philosophy. Finding multiple examples of a pattern in Nature only serves to confirm the presence of a Conservation of Number as a survival mechanism under incrementally deteriorating conditions.
Religion and Eastern Philosophy ideas are different strategies of rationalization used as a coping mechanism for attempts at surviving under perceived conditions. All else is mere embellishment contrived by underlying influences of development which become translated by way of cultural orientations to provide alternative ideas to the same underlying patterns all life forms experience according to their respective physiology and level of anatomical expression. For example, the body plan of insects is described as Head- Thorax- Abdomen, but in humans may be elaborated (by way of a more complex functioning brain) into viewing three types of body shape called the Ectomorph- Mesomorph- Endomorph. And yet, the same basic "3" pattern is being applied by humans as part of their rationalized ideological trends utilizing a "Conservation of Number" survival technique. And even if someone comes along and wants to throw a wrench into such an idea by adopting a larger number, they are thus using the often-used three-patterned scheme of one- two- Many... though their particular terminology may be multiplicity, plurality, Infinity, Universe, Numerous, pile, etc..., or some specific number that to them represents a larger number than that typically used, such as trillions, zillions, or otherwise made-up (conjectured) sum like the word "Gazillion"... unless of course they go to some reference source and get the word which references the largest number to be found in its listing.
There is no salvation for humanity on Earth, and this includes any idea about living a life which prepares them for some presume desirable after-life. The only way for humanity to preserve its species for further development is to collectively direct all resources towards severing the umbilical cord with "Mother" Earth by getting off the planet, out of the solar system, and away from the Milky Way galaxy. All the goals of all religions, philosophies, businesses, sciences and governments have no value for the future of humanity if they are being used as rationalizations for keeping humanity tied to the Earth, tied to the solar system and tied to the Milky way galaxy. Far too many of our ideas exhibit the patterns being influenced by the environment and as such, are inevitably directed towards creating some model of rationalization so as to support the species in the environment... as it slowly deteriorates towards an eventual demise, and no amount of environmental conservation can prevent this... it can only slow down the pace which will eventually be offset by an increasing population where losses will exceed any and all gains that are suffered by way of the inebriation caused by rationalization being chosen as a place of refuge because humanity refuses to leave the Earth in any concerted way. Everyone must pay for the departure from Earth and no one must be allowed to hoard or exploit.
While research into the "threes" phenomena has provided a list of different examples from a variety of sources, it also shows an absence from some places and the presence of another pattern. I can not emphasize enough when I say that when we take stock of the number patterns being generated, we find that only a handful are being used in a repetitive sense for multiple subjects. While one can find larger numbers being used in certain perspectives, they are limited to those certain perspectives. If we simple want to refrain from looking at multiple subjects and concentrate in one direction, then of course we will only see that which we preferentially want to. Like those who want to disparage a use of a given number, be it threes, fours, fives, sixes, sevens, or otherwise. We can indeed make a singular case for the repetition of a given pattern if we are preferentially looking for such a pattern to the exclusion of others. And the same is of course for those who want to focus on exceptions as an argument against another's preferential exception. But if we include all the numbers for all subjects, we do indeed find a recurrence of some number (or geometric, etc.) patterns more than others. I call this phenomena a "Language of Consciousness", even if a given pattern is used in an unconscious manner. Some small numerical patterns (such as fractions) can be used quite frequently in some subject area, but is absence from multiple others. The same situation occurs for much larger numbers such as dealing with astronomical or geological events, though other subjects might be included such as the decay rates of radioactive particles and the quantity of cell divisions that may occur. But such repetitions don't occur with human thinking. Whereas we can think about them, they do not occur with regular thinking, unless one's brain is isolated in a configuration that is not common. For example, an astronomical event taking place every many thousands of years is not a quantity one encounters when engaged in more common stands of though in different subjects. If larger or small (fractional) numbers were the common orientation, the idea of consciousness types would be viewed in the hundreds or thousands such as 300 or 3,000 or divided into thirds.
Nature appears to be engaged in a "Conservation of Number" such that we encounter am octet (8) rule in chemistry (with three exceptions), but not some 80th rule. Similarly, we find another low number in Nature's interaction of atomic particles not only fractions involving thirds, but quantities of threes. Also, we find a small number being used in a basic constituent of Life called DNA, with a triplet code, though some readers may reference the presence of a "2" in the presence of two (double-helix) strands, or cite 4 amino acids, but fail to take into consideration the presence of these patterns (2 strands- 3 code- 4 amino acids) as an ensemble of three.
Using a tool of "threes" is just one way of looking at multiple aspects of Nature. Biology is another tool. So is Religion, business, politics, Sociology, Western/Eastern Philosophy, Mathematics, Yin/Yang ideology, Medicine, Sports, Anthropology, Architecture, Music, Art, Acting, etc... However, most of them are typically focused on a single orientation of Nature such as the Nature of humans in a given activity. Whereas biology has comparative anatomy, and other perspectives may dabble in some type of comparison with or more subjects, they generally do it is a specific way for a given purpose. They may even, on occasion engage in the use of one perspective as a means of proposing it is wrong in some capacity, such as Biology with its notion of Evolution, when viewed by those in Religion attempting to support their view by advancing the notion of an "intelligent design", but refuse to accept that Evolution could be part of the so-called Intelligent design.
Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, Monday, 21st November 2022... 6:00 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this page): 9th January 2023... 11:19 AM AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.