("1- 2- Many" profiling Introduction)
Progressive Thinkers as of 12/1/2022
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In the exploration of the "1- 2- Many" idea I speak of in different contexts, it is a good idea for the reader to have a basic understanding of what I am talking about. I am relating the notion of a developmental enumeration taking place with the human mind over time. Different people in different time periods appear to exhibit a collective representation of human cognitive development over time as if they are a living record of multiple successive developments having taking place with cognitive activity. Some people, for whatever reason(s) exhibit a compilation of events that took place over extended periods of time. It is much like the idea once postulated by Ernst Haeckel in which he described the influential Recapitulation theory, that is now largely discarded, but none-the-less exhibits similarity of developmental structures. And it matters not if you accept it, the idea that early forms and functionalities preceded later ones of surprising similarity is an idea which multiple researchers in multiple subjects have used in one manner or another, such as the history of tools, history of stools and perhaps even a history concerning fools, though still being described by folklorists in the same literary fashion and not as comparative analysts of cognitive dissection.
In the present discussion for example, there exists the idea that early peoples developed the concept of enumeration over time illustrated by the general pattern of 1- 2- Many. (A concept for the quantity of one, a quantity of two, and anything beyond two was referred to in some manner representing the idea of "Many", and likewise represents an overall cognitive limit represented by the three items of a 1, a 2, and many. It is a three-patterned sequence which may have initially occurred due to a pairing method, in which correspondences of observation were associated with some type of count. I do not know when it began, who first adopted the inference or who was first to use some type of symbology such as a scratch mark in the sand, on a stone or on a bone... if not on their body, on a cave wall or tree, or simply had a measure of being able to memorize that which may or may not have been articulated to one or more others. In any event, at some point in human history, someone(s) came up with the idea of counting where stops, starts, and perhaps even some momentary Eureka! (flash of insight or genius) instructively pointed a person in the direction which ultimately fashioned the idea for:
- The count of 1, with anything more being referred to in some way as "many" or much, or all, or heap, etc.... (Hence, they had a serial count of 1-Many), [and before this may have been only the concept of 1.]
- Then some time later came the number 2 and it was followed by the count of "Many" or whatever term the given linguistic environment of a past era provided. (Though before this the count may have existed without reference to any model of "Many".)
- And at this later point early humans may well have lingered there (with what we today can describe as a "one-two-many" script) until the human capacity for accepting an enlarged boundary of association was developed.
Granted that my illustration may itself be crude with respect to what actually occurred, but you can get the gist of the idea I am describing.)
How long humanity lingered at the concept of "1" or even how long a time we of today might want to consider the early counters may have lingered without counting prior to the conceptual break-through of a "1", (and perhaps relied on a formula of instinctual subitizing)... is anyone's guess in our current state of studying the trail of enumeration through history by way of an Anthropology of Numbers. However, the same goes for the development of the number 2 and the "all others territory" where the word "many" is inserted to describe 3 or more, much in the manner some use the terms plurality, a few, a lot, etc., in different contexts even today... which suggests the early cognitive pattern of 1-2-Many has simply donned a new linguistic wardrobe to fit the era of vocabulary and articulation in which we live.
Comparative anatomists have uncovered biological as well as anatomical structures and functions which give the impression that the same biology occurs multiple times, which includes evolutionary developments. And yes, there are currencies of stops, starts, regressions, and mutations. But there also appears to be a step-wise direction which can be seen in some instances, though this in no way is claiming it is by way of an intelligent design as if performed in align with a blueprint, but more so I would say in terms of providing us with a tell-tale sign of environmental influences.
It is neither difficult nor a stretch of the imagination to consider that the human mind can exhibit instances of recreating past ideas, if only on a very basic level to which we can apply enumeration as a tool of identification. Such a method is used when describing the Pentadactyl Limb, though its past and current representation is very basic and can be further deduced by using a tool of "3" in concert with the older ideas:
However, this begs the question of whether our presumed very primitive skeleton, no doubt visible to primitive peoples from time to time, somehow influenced the later conceptual development of enumeration in the 1-2-Many fashion herein described. Likewise, did this skeletal expression get its influence from some formative biological or chemical structure which can be interpreted as exhibiting such a pattern as well? While it is easy to suggest that the triplet code of DNA influenced the later development of what we categorize as three life domains (Bacteria- Archaea- Eucaryota) and that the third "many" item came to express its own adoption and adaptation of the pattern with the three Germ Layers, it is at present only a supposition that many researchers do not like to indulge in, because we can well follow up with an even early and later eventual influences as well.
If in fact there are visible instances of certain individuals who for whatever reason(s) illustrate a compilation of earlier cognitive events with the language and ideological expressions for their given era, then the work of Aesop is an example of a compact compilation of past cognitive events portraying the development of enumeration. While we may assign the word "enumeration" to it in the present era, some future era may develop some clearer understanding of what the repetition may actually mean, if removed from humanity's absorption with itself.
Clearly, not everyone resorts to using notches, scratches, piles of sticks, or some other representative tally measure they manipulate with their hands in accord with their mindset. Some people count intentionally with words, while others count using words and don't realize they are engaging in an activity where a process of counting is taking place, yet they either remain oblivious to it or do not speak of it except to a close niche of friends, or associates. Such is the multiple cases in which numbers were aligned with letters or completed words as a code. While this is not saying that everyone engaged in an exercise of speaking or writing words has some underlying accounting activity going on in their brain, we of today can take stock of the idea that words can illustrate simple enumeration, even if all of us engage in a personalized form of calculus for even the simplest of tasks like walking, hand-to-eye co-ordinations, etc... In the present task, I have been engaged in analyzing the collection of Aesop's Fables with a "1- 2- Many" formula to provide an easily understood representation of how the pattern can be illustrated, even if Aesop was not aware of this.
Here is the following image in pdf form: Aesop's Fables.pdf. The smaller image gives the reader an easy survey of how I have arranged the "1- 2- Many" categories into different listings. While the categories might give the impression of being too general and broad, nonetheless this is the recurring theme that the human mind is using, albeit with different words and symbols in different contexts. The repetition of such a small quantity of themes is similar to the small quantities we find being used in multiple instances such as a triplet code in genetics, the "threes" in physics, the Monad, Dyad, Triad/Plurality in conventional (Western) Philosophy, the Oneness, Duality, Many theme in Metaphysical (Eastern) philosophy, the One god- Duality- Trinitarian/Triune, of Western religion, etc...
(Push on the image for a larger view.)
Note: The "ox and the Wheels" in the "Two" section might be best if placed in the "Many" category.
Permit me to speculate, with the provision of being able to correct such impulses of expression as needed:
If the one-two-many sequence is a recurring pattern, this may well qualify as indication your underlying consciousness from which a higher consciousness can only emerge, is trying to speak to you. Some people listen and alter the meaning into a religious context, while others focus what is being symbolically expressed... towards a life-directing philosophy as can be seen in Eastern religions. Others get intermittent impressions out of which the idea of a New Age is on the verge of dawning. And yet others applying the pattern of symbolic articulation into their respective interests, be it mathematics, music, dance, art, gambling, writing, or some other profession within which typically has its own jargon, vernacular, idioms and traditions of interpretation.
The collection of Aesop's fables provides an excellent model for introducing the reader to (a "threes" tool by which) the "1- 2- Many" frame can be applied to the ideas found in all subjects, thus revealing the existence of a Standard Cognitive model for humanity; and thus enabling us to monitor changes in cognition over time... with respect to identifying deteriorations, mutations, experimentation, idiosyncrasies, or that mental activity which some may come to thing to be an expression of growth... if not an expanding consciousness. Aesop's fables used in the present context will enable many different people from many different walks of life to view and monitor human mental activity, and not leave it to some assumed repository of experts to be a filtering mechanism for establishing validity of an existing cognitive profile. The so-called experts don;t know everything.
We can find the pattern in the development of counting, in art, social structures, physics, mathematics, advertising, military strategy, playing checkers, chess, poker, shooting billiards, football/basketball/baseball (etc.) strategies, experimentation, gang behavior, songs, business strategies, experimentation, sexual behavior, report writing, etc... In the case of a "3 -to- 1", one might view this as a "Many -to- One", and larger denominations would remain in the "Many" segmentation, and is consistent with that seen in some biological circumstances though not customarily identified within the framework I am using as a scaffolding approach at erecting the idea of a Standard Cognitive Profile, where exceptions may occur in actuality, or just in the mind of a given researcher who is anxious to describe some flaw in any pattern presented to them, without considering the notion of their type of thinking as being part of a recurring segment in the profile.
In most instances it appears that people use a "3, or more than 3" point of demarcation to be alternatively viewed as a "Many" category, though don't be surprised if you find someone who insists on using more than 1, or a more than 2, as a point beyond which they reference the idea of "Many". By identifying a recurring model of thinking being used by all humans, whether a given person, group, culture, etc., uses the entire "1- 2- Many" scale (ruler) or even in this sequencing arrangement. Like the musical chairs game we see in Word Order-ing (involving the three: Subject- Object- Verb), the "1- 2- Many" frame could be rearranged like a person who changes the positions of furniture in their house, items in a shed or garage, or rearranges items in a kitchen, bathroom cabinet, wallet, tool box, horse stable, garden, bookcase, characters in a story, etc... If there are changes taking place with the human species', we need to know why. Does it speak of something good or bad or repetitiously stagnant, thus leaving humanity vulnerable to alteration by environmental events, disease, etc... In other words, does the situation present humanity as being in a cave, open air, or stuck in some muck?
I took the list of Aesop's fables from here: Library of Congress: A list of Aesop's Fables, and subjected the list to a "one, two, Many: profiling which includes an example of the "3-to-1" grouping pattern, and came up with the following list. Generally, if a word was pluralized I considered it to reference "many", though one might say that "2" items can be viewed as a plurality in some instances. Also, I put "The Milkmaid & Her Pail" selection into the single category but it might the better be placed in the "two" column, because the pail is not a physical extension of the person, per se, though an animal and their ears are. Anyway, while there are multiple ways of categorizing the list: by animal types, people, insects, reptiles, etc., my intent is to show that the basic cognitive themes aligned with numerical indices can be deduced. The abundance of "two-patterned" ideas may well reference the dominant prevailing context in which Aesop lived, as it might have been the case in Ancient China with the advent of the Yin/Yang idea, though in an Indo-European context the development of a two-patterned based Mathematics was being unleashed in academic circles. I do not know if this same categorizing of other areas (mythology, religion, politics, philosophy, art, music, etc...) would yield a similar patterning profile in that the "2" would be dominant as well.
However, because we can find an abundance of "two-patterned" ideas in mathematics, the mathematics being generated at the time needs to be taken into account as a representative corollary taken place at a later time and context. In other words, because of a similarity of design, the dominance of the "two" profiled by the Chinese "yin/yang" came to be expressed later on in Europe hen the European brain matured beyond its expressed ignorance, since the Chinese were much more advanced in many ways than the rest of world's human populations... or so it appears by reading some accounts of history.
Here are examples of the "two" used as a stopping point in several present day cognitive profiles... and imposing themselves to the extent that anyone experiencing a "third" placement step beyond binary/dichotomous thinking, are being actively suppressed or "contoured" along a behavioral path of incorporating their developing cognition into some "two" frame of thinking. The situation is like someone in an ancient clan having progressed beyond a "1-2" count and is forced to either think this way (or some manner thereof) or be ostracized. The situation is more serious than the reader may at first think about.
Dualities in basic Computer Language
If we accept the task of surveying multiple religions and their counter-part ideological orientations called Eastern Philosophies, though the philosophies appear to be inclined more-so towards practical personal and social reforms (along with metaphysical considerations) than I think Western religions are because of the very many activities involving combativeness during different eras which western religions have engaged in (for example the crusades and an absence of a similar historical referencing for Eastern philosophies); there is a distinction to be made on how the values of 1, 2 (3 -to/in/from/with- 1), and Many can be described. I think the numbers are reflective of a basic cognitive code being expressed in different way during different eras and highlight a repetitiveness leading me to conclude we are in the midst of a "Conservation of Number" usage due to constraints put on our biology by an incrementally deteriorating environment. Indeed, the "1- 2- Many" formula can be seen in basic biology in the form of a single cell- divides by two- producing Many cells... but has a limitation in so doing, and there is only a modicum of regeneration.
In some case for some subjects, I have encountered what appear to be transitional representations of ideological focusing such as between 1 and 2; 2 and 3 and 3 and Many. In several instances we humans refer to "3 or more" as a plurality, or in other words a "Many" that might be alternatively described as much, more, plenty, heap, few, some, bunch, pile, X, XX, XXX-large, infinity, etc... Hence, while I have singled out the only example of a 3 -to-1 occurring in the Aesop listings, it may indicate a transitioning moment to devise a multiplicity/plurality with distinction.
Much like the usage of the Christian concept of the Trinity which is sometimes referenced as "3 persons in 1 godhead", otherwise interpreted to me that it is a singular model of multiplicity. However, as I have stated before, the Trinity appears to be a left-over orientation of a planetary orientation once used by Pagan Nature worshipers who were more honest and observant about Nature to the extent they had no qualms about deducing the Sun as having 3 "aspects" which we call dawn-noon-dusk. The absence of literacy, knowledge (along with a belief in superstition and magic) and a much closer attendance to Natural events by a people who "lived off the land" in a pristine mode of day-to-day experience... as opposed to all the artificiality people of today are subjected to; the 3 daily solar phases would easily be viewed as an important theme. People can not see the origin of the Trinity as part of some ancient Nature worship because they more often turn to an artificial source called a bible, Koran, or other so-called sacred writings. Such people no long want to trust their own perceptions and judgments. But if you take such artificial sources away, then they seek out some other form of artificiality, like so very much of what is part of so many lives. Taking a walk in a park or stroll on a beach is a far cry from living hand-to-mouth off of a piece of acreage were there are no existing technologies and you are not even aware of such technologies as well.
Those who seek to "get back to Nature" only do so to a certain extent. Because of the prevailing level of knowledge exhibited in the common person's speech patterns and topic of conversations, there is no way for any of us to actually get back to the type of Nature our forbearers lived with. Hence, to speak of the three phases (or "moments") of the Sun as having influenced the idea of the present day Trinity derived from pagan Nature worshiping orientations (and may have also influenced the triplet code of DNA many billions of years ago when the Earth was spinning much faster thus creating a triple-patterned strobe-light branding iron effect on vulnerable biological substrates); is too fare removed from a mentality whose majority of interests and day-to-day mental exercises involve an appreciable accounting of artifiicialized collections of ideas. For example, use of the electric light as a substitute for daylight, the many artificially-created foods and drinks, modern medicine artificialities, entertainment artificialities, etc... In fact, some people have never thought about how much of their life is actually based on some artificiality such as the clothes they wear, their false teeth, joint replacements, artificial cooling and heating, etc... I'm not saying these things are not needed, but they set people up from being unable to recognize the more pristine origin from which something has arisen.
With respect to the Trinity, the "3 -in- 1" model of thinking shows up elsewhere as well. It is not restricted to the Christian trinity as this list shows: 3 to 1 ratios page A. One point which needs to be brought up is that if the pattern is related to the influence of the three solar events (dawn- noon- dusk), and they are incrementally "fusing" due to the expansion of the Sun as it deteriorates(or at least spreading apart (elongating) due the Earth's slowing rotation), then we should be able to recognize the same event taking place with biological extensions thereof... but would not think of it unless someone like me shirked the conventionalities being presented by both religion and science.
Whereas the reader might want to argue that if the Sun has a triple pattern influence on biology, and thus physiology and thus ideology, where are the other "threes" ideas? Instead of orientating yourself to a singular major pattern-of-three, some people use "many" smaller ones, while others use just a few. Does the reader know which their's are/is? Perhaps you prefer to use dichotomies and not realize you use three major ones or use them in three different situations, etc... Then again, another may like the concept of singularity and uses it on a regular three-moments basis without even being aware that they are.
Date of Origination: Wednesday, 11th January 2023... 4:48 AMDate of Initial posting: Saturday, 14th January 2023... 12:36 PM
Update: Wednesday, 27th November 2024... 4:42 AM