page 21
Progressive Thinkers as of 12/1/2022
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
While I don't pretend to have created a singular view that everyone will be able to best fit their own ideas with, it is a relative approximation of trying to establish a working hypothesis to point a direction in which others can survey and decide for themselves whether it is a stepping stone, wild boar path, rivlet, broken twig, crumb or simply provides some semblance of an impression that "there is something there which we may want to explore further".
However, at this juncture in the composition, which falls on the heels of several days of piecing different images of ideas together worthy of at least 4 web pages, each with over 30 mb of material, I actually have no idea of how I want to present the narrative of language as a final expose'. I am much in the position of a person daydreaming or getting the gist of some impressions from which might well be produced a poem or image. I have not reached the point of crystallizing some formative production other than what can be described as a sketchbook, napkin doodling, or an act of seemingly mindless porch-swing whittling, if not taking an aged small branch from a tree and break it into uncounted pieces as I walk along, that might serve as some unconsciously design model of tossing out bread crumbs.
While the final product can rightly be surmised as being in some measure of gestation phase, I nonetheless must present myself with some measure of a vague outline about the terrain to be covered in this exploration and final mapping, after a bit of surveying takes place. While most accounts of such behavior may remain absent or secretive from public view, there are not that many who peruse my pages and therefore my ideas remain relatively obscure to the point one might say such efforts as the present are incognito. Since I don't speak as I write and actually look more the part of an itinerant Johnny Apple-seed than some would-be tenured professor draped with an Literary department's visible sport coat acoustic taken from a manicured wardrobe by a woman whose affections are an incessant reminder she is immersed in the practice of mothering due to some fastidious empty nest syndrome which no model of psychology can cure; I can absentmindedly comport my type of madness as a fashionable irrelevancy to all wanna-be plagiarists and usurpers of my windmill entanglements by would-be beleaguering interlopers from the three isles of Dante whose comedic entitlement is the bequest of a Machiavellian domestique in the indentured servitude of an aristocrat flipping a coin as befits the mood and vicissitudes of the milieu they are occupying at a given moment.
As I pursue the topic of "threes" research, which is in no way limited to patterns-of-three; I come to find that within the domains of different subjects there appears to be just as many sub-fields of research as there are sub-domains. For example, a field such as biology involves multiple areas of research and those areas of research can have those who are researching very small areas, because there is so much information available to be considered, and by narrowing one's field to a specialty that may or may not have as yet received recognition as a viable area of research that should be given the award of a grant, be it from a government's science division, a university or some private party such as a business. There is so much information available that it is rare to encounter someone who has not only an eclectic ability to survey multiple areas of research within a given subject, much less multiple subjects, it is accepted and expected of researchers to adopt an interest in a very narrow area of interest where the information can be effectively illustrated to those who may or may not be a specialist, that such research is or has the potential of being useful either in extending human knowledge applicable to current orientations of interest or is useful and needed; so that they can be influential in directly providing funding for such research or assist in getting such funds.
As I dive deeper into areas of consideration where others are already established a rule of thumb of what is and is not a useful research orientation, I am confronted by those whose language is needed for a given topic of research, but that their particular research interest is commonly very narrow. Many researchers will ignore you because in providing additional information means they may have to include variables that those who are funding them will not accept enlarged parameters of consideration. It doesn't matter if you're right and have something of value to add. If you are not currently expressing the narrow field of vision and language, as well as supplying references to others who share in the narrow field of vision, you ideas may be rejected... or kept at arm's length until some respected person provides for an allowance and is the needed leg-up assistance. A single reference from history may suffice as an analogy:
At first Einstein's 1905 papers were ignored by the physics community. This began to change after he received the attention of just one physicist, perhaps the most influential physicist of his generation, Max Planck, the founder of the quantum theory. ("Einstein, Albert." Encyclopædia Britannica.)
Using a simple analogy may be of recognition that various researchers are being confronted with:
Let us say that everyone's research falls under the heading of "playing cards". While the vocabulary of the field are the same, they differ in meaning and application depending on whether one's primary interest is poker, crazy 8s, fish, pinochle, rummy, whist, Uno, 21, five card stud, ombre, old maid, black jack, euchre, bridge, etc... Like cards with different numbers of players, we can find research interests that generally exercise a similar number of associates, where the game of solitary often defines the situation with many researchers... they are solitary researchers playing a game in which there may be thousands of solitary researchers, while other types of "research games" typically involve two players, three players, etc.., including the occasional by-standing interests who may bet on a certain outcome so as to enrich themselves financially, socially, academically, etc...
Each type of card game uses a similar vocabulary though there are differences, as well as different interpretations of the same word in some instances such as what is meant by a:
- 'wild card'
- appropriate number of cards to be dealt
- number of players
- numbers of suits (how many and which kinds of suits (card groupings) are going to be accepted)
- and other numerically defined ideas such as how many points are to be received for a given situation.
However, if you are a card player who also engages in other types of games, whether you bet or not, you may not be permitted to use the language nor rules from another game (For example, you can't say "go fish" while playing poker.). Information applied to one type of game, though it may find similarity in construction or functionality to another type of game, may be strictly forbidden; even if it can be shown that all players could be advantaged or that the game would be more fun or interesting. Even if all the players claim to be open to new ideas, this may not be the actual case since their routine of thinking is to follow a course of play that has been previously familiarized and engaged in without exception, and they have carved out an intellectual niche' in a given game with given rules. And while most people think that making an allowance for new ideas is acceptable, this may not be the case for one person who has not learned how to and are not flexible enough to change in a given situation. Let me provide a for-instance, though I have offered it before on other web pages at the Threesology.org site.
Many decades ago I would play a card game called rummy with a group of friends. On one occasion we had a friend that wanted to join in because they said they liked to play rummy. After explaining that the group routinely lets the dealer choose which cards are wild and which cards are worth what points along with choosing how many cards are to be dealt, they agreed and we began playing. However, by the third dealing by a different dealer who had also changed the wild cards and point denominations as well as the number of cards to be dealt, this new player... whom we all had known for years, became visibly upset and demanded that we "play the game the right way"... that is, by the rules which accompanied the pack of cards. They wanted to use one deck instead of our customary two or three and have only certain cards as the wild cards for every play, along with the same number of cards being dealt out. Needless to say, I was totally taken aback by such behavior.
I had no idea he was so ridged in his thinking (and in reflection, perhaps a bit autistic)... much less become upset over something as silly as a card game he could have easily excused himself from without anyone thinking the less of him. Yet, after this display, no one could look upon this individual in the same way again. His inflexibility set the tone for how he was thereafter treated. We never introduced new ideas nor asked him to join us in an impromptu outing, though he sometimes wondered why he was being excluded and decided to find new friends who were much like himself. In fact, on another occasion while engaged in driving a 2 1/2 ton truck into the nearby mountains to get a load of wood for his mother's fireplace, the presence of uneven ground in the fields where we had to go to, caused him to get upset when the truck required some extra "emphasis" by the driver; to which he bolted out of the cab and I took over, because he nor the other person with us would take up what appeared to me as a negligible charge. And to think that both of them were interpreted by others as being tough, ready-to-go-the-extra-mile guys. I never asked either one of them for any assistance in any project from that time forward. Solitary assertions were far better than having them in the way.
However, in academically-oriented disciplines, the solitary research game can only get one so far. Eventually, one has to take up playing a different type of card game where the players are open to new ideas. Then again, there are multiple electronic games being played by individuals who have never... and may never meet in person, though the game they share in as solitary players steadily progresses. Nonetheless, finding a particular type of research game engaged in by multiple solitary players may not be so easy... even when other players are looking for you at the same time you are looking for them in the same field on the same day with the same sun shining and the same winds blowing your individual kites entangled on opposite sides of the same tree... and your dog's leash has been curled about your legs preventing all but a scene of being tripped up as you try to move in any research direction. HA!
Whenever a person portrays the existence of what they believe to be is a recurring pattern to be interpreted in a given way, it seems someone invariably comes to point out some other pattern as an exception to some supposed rule that is being used to dictate what does or does not constitute a propriety of the pattern... much like someone pointing out a flaw or the breaking of some rule. By narrowly defining what can or can not be included as a representation of a given pattern, the adopted standard becomes a sort of game that may be taken up and played by others. Those who can not abide by the rules are not permitted to engage in the game of play which might involve a highly specialized conversation, vocabulary and context in which the game and its players are permitted to "joust" out their views, just like any tournament or specialized setting for competing in what may be described as a setting for contests supported by one or more interested bystanders or participants in a given match. My ongoing thesis about what may be alternatively titled "patterns-of-three", "the threes phenomena", "tripartite ideology," etc., attempts to incorporate every single activity and idea involving humanity. While I began my research project years ago initially as a lengthened collection of different examples using a "three theme", I had to broaden my interest to include all number patterns, and those patterns which do not routinely sport an enumeration.
As I continue to look at different subjects, I find that in some cases what one person defines as a pattern-of-three may not be as distinct a pattern to me because the person is looking an something by way of a preferential bias to see something in such a way so that it conforms to a predisposition they are seeking confirmation of, though there may be few actual instances thereof. The same goes for other patterns. What one person may claim (for example) to be a pattern-of-four, may actually be a doubling of a two-pattern, such as when someone is using a pairing method to count with... hence, they count by twos but are not actually thinking quantitatively... it is merely a rote exercise of memorization that others are exercised to label as mirroring, like the mirroring which appears to take place with a symmetrical body plan (called parity in physics and mathematics), or radial and bilateral in biology, though other subjects have their own labeled references that might otherwise be noted as dualities, dyads, dichotomies, parallels, etc... I have also found that when making a claim of a given number pattern, someone might object and say that there are just as many examples of another number pattern, yet they rarely if ever produce evidence for such a claim... they merely provide a few examples and support their effort by claiming there are "lots of them", which to me sounds a lot like the cognitive limit of "many" used as a general statement referencing primitive counting efforts, and one might assume the present cognitive limit being expressed by Mathematics which incorporates the idea of "infinity". Their conclusion and its reference is similar to the primitive's use of the word "many" to describe a quantity beyond the conventional limitation of common cognitive development. The same idea is used when we of today say "infinity", to indicate that which seems reasonably uncountable even in one's life time or the life time of an entire species.
In making a list of examples of different numbers, one might readily encounter numerous examples of one number such as 2 or 3-patterned references, and fewer examples of 8 or 9. The higher one goes in a counting system the fewer examples one encounters. Hence, it is the smaller numbers of a number line which provide the most examples and that of those smaller numbers, some numbers appear to have more examples which can be called a repeating pattern. In other words, there appears to be what I call a "conservation of number". There is a pattern of more and less usage with respect to ideas and behavior which we come to apply a number to. At such a simple juncture there is not attempt to develop a scheme to determine what has caused a certain number pattern to be used, while in other instances of examination one might label a certain group of examples as those belonging to religion, myth, fairy tales, sports, music, biology, mathematics, etc. However, it should be noted that the use of mathematics as a tool for analyzing mathematics, we come into a problem since mathematics itself is not structured with a philosophical orientation that permits it to be readily seen as a list of dichotomies, until one takes time to write down examples of mathematical ideas and operations. In other words, Mathematics does not know itself well enough to be an objective observer of its own character, if not psyche. Such a state may be exemplified by the lack of attention the presence of dichotomies in mathematics has received not only Mathematicians, but Philosophers as well. For example, while some may call the simple operations of add/subtract, multiply/divided as set of four, another may group them as two sets of two (or mirror-imaged twos), as is the case herein. In other circumstances, as I recall from childhood, there are those who adhere to the notion that division is just a form of multiplication, thereby rendering the four into a 3- or 3-to-1 ratio pattern.
Language... or let us say Linguistics, is also a poor tool to be used when analyzing itself (the same subjects), because it does not hear what is being said... namely that in order to properly understand the subject one must have a grasp of the patterns being exhibited by the ear as a transitional/translational device between the inner and outer worlds. And these patterns reflect a numerousity, such that when an infant babbles it is speaking the tongue of enumeration, but we misinterpret because society does not collectively know how to view a world of simple enumeration. It takes years of practice to learn how to decode all the language nonsense taught to us, before we begin to perceive in one type of enumeration or another, depending on context, content and person in a given environmental setting... and those that do, attribute their ability to some especial cognitive tribute to themselves and label it with a sound-word to suggest to others some great significance is being undertaken such as pure mathematics, or applied mathematics, or geometry, or statistics, or accounting, or numerology, or quantum entanglement (using numbers), etc...
Hence, let us consider that all language theories are wrong because they focus on the topic of sounds directed by a given environment and thus replicated in some manner by the type of physiology... the type of cognitive development for a given stage of human development both onto-genetically and phylogenetically (the species and the individual), and the sounds are a type of masking... a type of camouflage, a type of coloring or plumage or some other physical characteristic noted by the Darwin's finches group; whereas the actual underlying language is a simple numerical one. In other words, the environment is displaying number identities but human physiology and the physiology of other life forms transforms the enumerations into overlapping frequencies called sounds. Whereas researchers eventually take observed information and transform them into some model of enumeration, this is only possible because of the underlying presence of enumeration. Nature is "speaking" in terms of simple arithmetical sequences that are eventually unraveled by researchers whose cognitive skills develop to the point of being able to see through the "sound bites" of ideas and view the presence of the natural patterns which are enumeration... that is, repeating numbers.
Those in society who start to see numbers may be disparaged by those who have developed an institutional model of enumeration... call it counting or otherwise, because they view their model akin to some religious belief. To think of numbers in any other fashion is akin to blasphemy or child's level of nonsense counting within a game. People who learn to decipher perceptions in the tongue of enumeration may well turn to some idea of what their behavior means. Unfortunately, because the ability to speak in a "tongue of number" (for want of a better label at this moment), has been beaten down by so-called "normal" language identities, the crudeness and fledgling primivities of ideas which develop about number patterns serves only to reinforce the notion that those who count are an aberration to normal thinking activity involving so-called normal language, though many people are counters in private. Whereas it is alright for some non-human entity like computers to use numbers as a language, and for people to develop the numerical language of computers to sophisticated degrees of expression; the idea that humans should or could operate in this manner is deemed "in-human"... or the activity of an idiot-savant, village idiot with a strange capacity for numbers, an autistic, or even a genius... who has no relative other person to communicate with or about their respective language of numerousity.
While someone who has spent years researching a given subject may well use numbers in one form or another to speak about and illustrate their findings, for a person not known to have spent years doing the same for any subject might well be viewed as an oddity, if it is in a form not typically recognized by current standards of number usage. If a person's ability to discern numerical patterns in one or more subjects is not defined or labeled with some present day accepted numbers practice, such an activity may be disparaged, particularly if the person's behavior conflicts with another's who want them to be occupied with something else that is beneficial to the other person. For example, they don't want a person to be absorbed by fishing when they want to go on a picnic. The act of perceiving number patterns may well be viewed as problematic if a parent sees their child doing so and does not have the capacity to understand nor explain the "non-normal child" behavior to others who are just as ignorant as a parent or sibling. It can be much worse for someone whose "parental figures" occupy an institution who insist their view of reality is the correct one, and they need everyone to comply with their views in order to prove to themselves and others they are correct in their assumptive guesswork.
Whereas we think that infants are babbling in utterances later to be identified and labeled as sounds and later identified and labeled as words instead of being expressions of enumeration, sets the stage for humans to take decades of unlearning the ideas of language instruction in order to uncover the supposed underlying code of a subject... such that we claim them to be basic patterns commonly illustrated with some enumeration, but do not describe the basic patterns of babbling nor later speech as enumerated patterns, until years later when a person who is labeled an "expert", has learned how to see through all the nonsense of language and identify the presence of some enumeration that so-called normal human society took years to cover up with assumed religious, business and political truths. And yet, even when a researcher finally attains a measurable ability to discern basic patterns that are enumerated, the years of being taught obfuscating language and language encoded ideas leads them often along channels of misidentifying the basic enumeration because of cultural and personal bias towards one or another number... and may even come to argue against such a circumstance by introducing more nonsense into the linguistic mix and disable themselves from recognizing the presence of a simply counting theme.
For example, you take one cell then it divides into two and from there many divisions take place. Hence, what we see is the enumeration of "One- Two- Many", but may focus on the "many" like some shepherd playing a one-upmanship game with their neighbor. To see or say some imagined greater entity is tantamount to saying oneself is greater. It takes years for researchers to "hear" through all the noise of their own thoughts and those of others, in order to unravel the basic enumerations of a subject, though not every researcher may use numbers. Instead, they either use number words or arrange word labeled ideas in a numerically identifiable format, while remaining oblivious to their use of enumeration in a calligraphic, illustrative, or other pictorial way where it is important for some to be able to trace their own handprint on a personal effort as an expression of ownership.
Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, 14th March 2020... 6:11 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this page): 9th January 2023... 11:32 AM AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.