Prologue 1
Progressive Thinkers as of 12/1/2022
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As a prologue following the introduction by way of three prefaces, there is a need to address the issue of using a "threes" idea to investigate Language and associated subjects. When so often I encounter rather negative interpretations of having an interest in the "threes phenomena", it is no wonder so many want to turn away from pursing the development of an idea involving enumeration. Unless one is involved with mathematics and therefore can claim a review of the "threes" recurrences in different contexts as part of an experimental foray into this area of consideration, one is not left with much else to support an excursion since the alternatives are considered to be esoteric, metaphysical, superstitious, religious or otherwise viewed in more serious negative terms as being a mental illness. No one has yet provided an acceptable explanation by actually surveying the different ideas and discovering they are all inadequate to the task.
For those who are already involved with Enumeration Research but do so in a quiet way, it is time to come out of the shadows and assert yourselves. Enough is enough is enough of the contemporary nonsense about researching one or another subject by way of a devised enumeration scheme. While there are those who are obsessive-compulsive, this is not the case for those use enumeration as an investigative tool from which may arise an equation which reveals some clue to a question that a person may not have even openly asked, but are then overwhelmed at the simplicity (or complexity) that they have come across, and makes their efforts all the more intriguing for a sustained pursuit. However, there is something about using numbers in a repetitive member which somehow provokes others to interject some negative appraisal, but this is not the case if someone likewise spends hours, days, weeks or even years studying the use of a musical instrument, or talk incessantly at every occasion about some sport or computer language. Since the usage of numbers has a history where one or another number was used by those involved with an activity that is today viewed as being a folly, those whose mindset takes upon themselves the usage of one or another number are automatically viewed in the same manner, be it called mysticism, occultism, pythagoreanism, superstition, sacred (religion associated), Astrology, Numerology, or just plain nonsense, if only because the person making the review has not actually taken the time to review the material you are trying to present.
I can not in any rational way accept the explanations being provided by otherwise well-meaning professionals whose usage of the tools within their preferred subject area do not permit them to be as open-minded as they might like to claim or think that they are. Their profession doesn't provide for it, much like a player of a board game who practices a strict adherence to the rules outlined on a small brochure or printed on the inside of a game's container. This is the way and only way for them to allow themselves to think, because it is a requirement for those who expect others in their subject-field to think accordingly, or they can not be considered a "true" player and are therefore not to be considered a professional... only because they on occasion like to travel down a different intellectual path chasing after some firefly... and may become so interested in the firefly they can never fully return to their former (strict) frame of thinking. They are changed, and those in authoritative positions may have no tolerance for those whose shoes are scuffed from venturing off the path of correct intellectual decorum. I have met many such people and have worked with them. You can not talk "other-than" what you are supposed to consider, unless you are able to create a situation in which their type of sobriety has its guard let down just enough for a glimpse to be got on the other side of their cell door. However, getting them fully drunk can be disastrous, since them may retreat all the more and deny you any access at all to their purview. You will be viewed a bad influence... perhaps even a corrupter of youth who is to be offered no less than a chalice of hemlock or some other more acceptable socialized concoction which results in your death by way of Ostracism, much like the Biblical story of Lazarus... but without a Saviour to extract you from the social media fabricated den of iniquity that they have caused others to stone you into.
Alas! dare you not give others reason to think you view yourself as some character of any history, or it will be like adding fuel to a fire or fodder to a barn; since there might well be an intensified frothing from two-legged mad dogs whose axes have been sharpened so as to stand before some crowd, any crowd, and recite some nonsensical nakedness of truth gibberish that is expected to be received by all and used as a mantra to encourage the allowance of increased irrationality seen so very often in mob mentality. Oh! and dare you not say the word... oh that shameful word... "3". How dare you! Why do you indulge in the practice of some Charlatan of exercised intellectuality that so many others had invested themselves in, only to find not but a cyclical redundancy? Surely, say the many professionals from their perch, you can see that I am right... that I am the greater purveyor of truth and that my art is the foremost science! Science! Yes! That is it! Let us call my interest a Science or tack on the suffix of -ence, -ology, -ism and be forever enshrined (in a three-patterned slogan) as The Way, The Truth!, The Life! above all other pursuers of that golden fleece, that golden chalice, that golden city (famed El Dorado) called Truth! That's it! Not just a Revelation of thought, but a Revolution of thought to create an apocalyptic event through all the kingdoms of intellectual traipsing about beneath the hooded cloaks of business, government and religious secrecy!
|
To write English thus, for all purposes tried where in later years find words are more mystified like the singular fox becomes more with es, yet the baseball team Sox is 1 or more, no less. But are two horses a herd, if not, then how many and when does more change to much then called plenty- if two sheep are a fold are 3 a flock as I've heard... with my party of ears, can a flock be one bird? Oh! when two's a couple, three becomes a crowd or sometimes called family with 4 or more allowed to some tis a tribe for whatever reasons why, still to others tis a clan, see how words can belie! Not the lie of the lay that was lain when we laid for when truth is true, it thus becomes real certainly your heart has seen these thoughts I feel, and have felt to think of a better language unmade. Surely you look to see what was seen when saw that is to eye the view of a vision in the raw bringing many to blush when speaking of a naked truth, whereby they try to conceal by clothing in a baby suit! Like peeping toms at a keyhole or fingers spread apart before language can mature, we must have a change of heart so if we've chosen to choose what was chose when selected, the decision to decide thus decided must be directed. When does a lake become a sea become the ocean by the by or a stone become a rock becomes a boulder my oh my or a brochure becomes a pamphlet, becomes a book for keepsake, no less, where is Heaven, if Hell is below standards we partake. To understand is not to overstand that standard is never sittard and though a fan may be fanned, no kid is ever kiddard- what then is the use of belaboring such folly, unless tis like hide-n-seek, where all kids look for olly. Thus we see tis not only words but ideas themselves called fairies, pixies, and sometimes little green elves where, with intelligence, become some ancient rule-of-thumb, till we sit back and think how really dumb we've become. Call it religion, call it science, or a metaphysical truth and then by adding numbers declare it's absolute proof put it in a book whereby you'll need no apology, especially if made-up words end with ism, ence, or ology. If language speaks of thought, then we are all confused made deliberately more so by so many tongues used but to have a single language for all to speak... or maybe all should stop talking, a golden silence for a week! Thus, tis not at fifty-five nor at a century's close and not grasped so effortless by a child as some suppose but by daily trial and error while at serious play, in a sandbox, on a playground, or skipping stones day by day. ................................. For a child's world drums a different measure of time's pace recall your own when summers were without a journey's end- how a child uses language from there to this moment's place, determines in later years, a foe, stranger, or friend. © H.O.B. 1997 (written in 1995) |
Oh my gosh! Why did it not occur to me before? I'll call it Threesology (study of threes). And also Threessence (Essence of threes). And let me not forget Threeism. There, that should be about all I need to convince the world that I have noting to hide as I search out an undertaking which others before have tried to accomplish from the separate camps of Language and Threes, but never together. Putting "Threes" together with "Language"? And then adding in the condiments of biology, physics, mathematics, history, zoology, chemistry, and multiple other subjects? What a novel idea! Let's add a drink and side order of French fries and call it a (three group) combo-meal! It's enough to whet anyone's appetite! Yet, let's not tell anyone what we are actually up to. Whereas we can say we are attempting to make money is acceptable, and it is acceptable to say we are throwing around crazy ideas, or that we are musefully looking at old ideas just for some divergent fun... but don't you dare say we are engaged in a serious effort at studying Language by way of something called... something newly coined as "Enumeration Research", because it will be like saying you have an interest in crop circles, or extra-terrestrials, or big foot, or the Loch Ness monster, or witchcraft, or ghosts, or collecting used cigarette butts out of ash trays and street gutters. Nope. Don't tell anyone or you might be labeled a weirdo, or "one of them", or "one of those kind". And it is particularly bad if your mannerisms do not reflect a mirror-image of those who are observing you. Heaven forbid that you are different... that you look and act weird, and yet have an encyclopedic knowledge of your interest.
Whereas in the deep past any usage of numbers was referred to as a mathematic, those who continued to study numbers and added rules of playing with numbers decided at sometime to call themselves Mathematicians! They were now not Numerologists engaged in simple manipulations and inferences, but dedicated to some higher purpose. Higher than religions, higher than mysticism, higher than the occult and so very high that some even deem to call their now paid profession the Queen of all Sciences! Everyone and anyone who does not walk the walk and talk the talk of what is thought appropriate, are not to be considered a Mathematician. But wait! Like religions of old that tried to stamp out so-called Pagan beliefs, they found it more useful to embrace the ideas and alter the labeling to coincide with their efforts to control so as to create the necessary illusions by which the populace would purchase by way of tithing's. Indeed, there are now so very many branches and sub-fields of Mathematics that one can not help but notice that previously denied excursions of thought once viewed as numerology or numerological distractions are now considered bona fide research efforts! Is this hypocrisy or an accepted realization that the human mind is otherwise stultified if it is forced to surrender to one set of game rules laid out by those Mathematicians who vehemently clamor that they and they alone are Purists of the Mathematical faith? So too do we find the same attitude in all subjects whose authority figures say what is and what is not acceptable. Don't you dare present a view of "threes" that does not conform to any standardized, traditionalized view of being engaged in little more than a rationalization, even if you take such an objective observation into account. Oh no! You can not play the part of the most objective Devil's Advocate! We are the Establishment! Not you... not your kind!
You must accept the fact that the world revolves around us... our views, our theories, our many accomplishments and positions in the hierarchy of education. It is we whom are your betters and you need to learn your place as some wanna-be infiltrator into the upper echelons of our dominion and exulted stature! Threes research! Whomever heard of such a thing!? It matters not that Mathematics had its origins in the pit of some secret society camouflaged by daily practices of commercial undertakings. Nay! We are an established Mathematics! In our humility we Mathematicians are a working lot. We know the trenches and the belfry. We are Mathematicians. We see all through the eyes of our different practitioners, know all by way of extensive applications, and are all powerful because numbers are evident in all forms of energy! Yes! Mathematics is the New Religion and Mathematicians the high priests! Dare you try to usurp the throne by suggesting in your Enumerations Research using a tripod called threes to survey the wide terrain of Mathematics to suggest it is based on a similarity of antiquated thought found in the Yin/Yang profile of cognitive orientation! Off with your head! Let us call the crowds to witness an execution!
What's this? You dare to thrown down the gauntlet and presume to challenge the very epitome of gladiatorial excellence? Choose thy place, thy time of your undoing! Bring thy 1) sword, 2) thy axe, 3) thy lance! If three be thy tool, thy weapon, then three shall be of the first of 333 coffin nails! No one but no one insults the Majesty of Mathematics nor the Scholars of Language nor the avant-garde of cognitive research! Imagine to think you are proposing the idea of a revolution... nay, an Evolution in Mathematical thinking! Evolution, Smevolution! Mathematics shall defend its god by its many monks and their Monasterial chapters who will pray for the deliverance of your sanity through a public exorcism to rid you of your "threes" evility! You dare to start a crusade without our established approval? What madness possesses you? Surely you must have sipped on the forbidden elixir stuffed behind the musty tomes of old when indulging in your threes research to shed light on the cobwebs of Language, Mathematics, and Cognitive research. Why can't you leave well enough alone? All was quiet, all was in equilibrium, all was without any need for upsetting the apple cart of chaos!
The present three-rope pugilistic ring with its rules of Bouts ranging from 3 to 12 rounds, each round normally lasting three minutes; can be used as a metaphor for what prevails as an upcoming match between conventional approaches to Language, Mathematics, Cognitive research... and threes research into these areas. It can be viewed in much the same way as when carbon-14 was first introduced as a testing method. The method had to go through adjustments so as to weed out errors, which was eventually accomplished by the introduction of the accelerator mass spectrometer. Threes research is working towards such a direction. Necessarily so, in these fledgling years of development there will be misdirection and cul de sacs as well as the occasional need for over-coming the pranks of those who would seek to tie our shoelaces together so as to make "Enumeration Research" look like a buffoon, comedic relief, or worse. While Mathematics may claim that it is such a research venue, its orientation does not permit any transgression of its stated allowances of thought being exercised under the heading of a recognized scientific procedure, because adherents to such a view think themselves in possession of the definitive expression and exercise thereof. To admit otherwise is to admit to a failure in logic. Mathematicians generally think of themselves as being engaged in the purest form of logic, particularly when philosophers of logic incline themselves towards using some mathematical disposition to buttress their ideas, all the while overlooking at the basic structure of Mathematics as being a robust model of dichotomization similar to that found in Psychology and the much older Chinese model called Yin/Yang.
Some do not want to take another look at the multiple types of threes occurrences along with an occasional absence thereof and that of other number patterns in all subjects. They prefer to accept whatever explanation asserts a status quo perspective and that they are not subjected to a reanalysis of their own views that they may have already discovered as having flaws, but are able to adequately conceal or camouflage them by currents standards of socialization... so long as current standards do not change... for which they will try to maintain at any cost. They are not ready for and do not want an actual revolution, just a pretend one as occur in day to day clashes of would-be political and social instigators of one or another presumed movement which are little more than fads permeating through a culture of permissibility which is its own makeshift factor of resilience, self-absorption and parental restraint. The people have become their own Big Brother and Big Sister as a nullifying effect on any attempted expansion of consciousness.
However, the notion of seeking an expansion in consciousness has resulted in so very many misdirections as to create a troll under the bridge awaiting anyone who might think to cross over into a genuine enlightenment. Far too many think in one or another metaphysic acting as an anchor, a leash, a kite string. Yet though many have reached what they believe to be an incredible height, they eventually look about and see the eventuality of an encroaching cloud cover instead of a hoped-for position beyond the norms of conceptual consideration inherent in the effects of an Earthly atmosphere. The desire for some pure energy or angelic-like existence amidst some heavenly, other-worldly or cosmogonic ethereal realm alludes their grasp. Every step, every leap, and for some.. every attempt by way of some artificial or drug-induced staging does not provide for a sustained grasp or permanent realization except by way of some rationalization that they may eventually confront at such a late age in life; but otherwise resign themselves to accepting their fate because they have little energy left to make another attempt to navigate a proposed new ideological adventure. They are presently safe, secure, and presumably sane... and if in any probability, have achieved some level of super-sanity and with it a higher level of consciousness that any former model of themselves would be justly overwhelmed by.
Granted, no one... least of all me, has any right to ask of you to consider an alternative perspective. For example, to look upon the anthropomorphized constellations and instead see the ancient model of a cognitive tally stick. Yes, I know such an idea is quite strange and perhaps even unsettling to those with a mind brought up on a different convention of perception that might be labeled a catalogue of stabilized social ideas which is now confronted with a different type of filing system... a different type of measuring stick... a different type of possible realization that their presumed enlightened consciousness did not take into account as a sign post... perhaps leading to a better, a brighter, a beckoning light that they thought they had reached in order to bask in. No! This can not be! You could not have spent your life reading the signs, those runes available only to the prepared, the initiated, those who are willing... to those with the right type of sensitive sensibilities able to detect the subtleties of a language which Nature speaks but so very few hear or hear correctly. No! you say. If you can't have it then those in generation yet to come should not have it either. Therefore, all reconsiderations of the "threes" idea need to be buried and sealed with a curse. And let us do this quietly. No gravestone, no whispers, and no one let to make mention of that which is different than what we already have. All is good. All is as it should be. Let those who seek Enlightenment, who seek a higher Consciousness, know not that they are the echoes of a call for Salvation sought for in a distant time of cognitive development with all its illiteracy, superstitions, esoteric imaginings and indulgences in sleight-of-hand magic.
Let us all instead return to the mindset of a darker age before language and yet the mind of ancient humans was very active. Though much of what was seen or felt or smelled was reacted to by mere impulse primed with a blunderbuss of fear, there were decided moments, when the hand-to-eye coordination effected a response of recital (unvoiced expressiveness), of repetition (mimicry), of recognition (proto-anthropomorphism), that was recorded on the ready-made blackboard we of today call outer-space, foreshortened (condensed/abbreviated) to 'space'. Yet, if such a nightly repeating diagram as we call today the Big Dipper with its seven stars or the repetitive occurring Pleiades with its seven stars are ancient tally sticks, where the stars associated at first with a number (quantitative) reference, or something more along the lines in which we presently view Crop Circles as either a geometry or a flamboyant artistic integrity? Was there an engaged form of pairing from which the notion of symmetry eventually arose, or simply some below surface recognition of a cognition having found the beginnings of a voice with which to express itself, instead of later on being subjected to the lashings of the human tongue that preferred an artistic inclination instead of a mechanical one that alphabets are now famous for?
Wait! What am I suggesting?! That human cognition has its own consciousness? But, you might ask, isn't it consciousness itself and thus achieved consciousness? Or am I saying the human cognition is a separate, though connected type of consciousness, and that perhaps because of threes influences, there are three (potential observable) interconnected types of consciousness to be identified differently from the 'mental state' one might assign to the three characters of the triune brain concept which outlines a limbic system, a old mammal brain and a new mammal brain? Am I thus talking about the present notion of a presumed higher consciousness in terms of three types of consciousness that are layered, but anyone of them can come to dominate? Hence, a new view of psychology is also to be proposed.
A New Age of thinking about Consciousness and Enlightenment is about to unfold. While many of the old and many of those who practice the old views will try to suppress the coming generations for expanding the realization, there will be those who are primed for the reception thereof. While some will experience it as mind blowing, others will view it as a stepping stone in a direction that was started long ago but the many trails towards the path thereof were covered with cobblestone, asphalt, or concrete by the ensuing eras of the Industrial, Scientific and Mathematic's Revolutions which are themselves awaiting an Enlightenment.
For those readers who would prefer to combine advances in Mathematics with those of Science, I beg to differ. Mathematics is as much a philosophy of logic as it is an art form and some would say a religion for some of its practitioners. Imagine, some practitioners of Mathematics thinking that if they associate themselves with a practice that is defined as pure, as logic, as next to perfection as one might get, that they too enjoy such an enlightened state of higher being... of higher consciousness than what one sees in most people.
But enough speaking about a higher consciousness when other items need to be repeated as well. One of which is the realization we are indeed being confronted by a repetition that I am viewing from one perspective as a language called a "cognitive language" that is quite old and needs to distinguished from the notion of Archetype. While this language is not a verbal language it has been kidnapped, indentured, and very much enslaved by the later born verbal language which has contoured its expressions, thought not all of them. In order to understand a 'language' form that is non-verbal yet very much conscious, how does one describe it when it has no rancorous voice as one might describe that type of language which the three-patterned dominant auditory channel is most found of, and influences visual perceptions to likewise be contoured along the same channel of alignment? The verbal voice type of language can be quite persuasive, even to those who might claim themselves to be attuned to non-verbal signs and symbols. Yet, even though humans were subjected to many years of a non-verbal or pre-verbal as well as proto-verbal environment, the hand-to-eye coordination did not take hold to create an illustrative language as one might describe Chinese calligraphy. Unfortunately, it too has fallen entrapped by verbal attenuations and embroideries; thus keeping the Chinese in a relative state of limbo like the West and its dogmatic serializations of thought which are like conveyor belts which do not easily permit the introduction of new ideas, where the occasional stops are regimentally assigned with a requirement of everyone leaving the conveyor belt room and attend some routinized social exercise in perpetuating the same nonsense.
While a prologue like a preface should provide some inkling of what to expect in the main body of a work, it is expressively difficult when the writer (such as myself) may wake up and work on a page which blurts itself out though there are more than a dozen pages already done and could be posted, but that refining ideas take old and a single page them becomes two pages that may then become three. However, there are some issues which must be addressed that are noticed as a concern by some readers who get lost and summarily fall behind and may diverge to some alternate trail where they make camp, and do not pursue anything further except to return to the familiar and they decide to stay clear of you because your ideas are much too complicated due to their unfamiliarity as a convention of speaking about, having heard, or not read before. No matter how many bread crumbs or juicy worms are laid out, they won't bite or simply choose to nibble on but be suspicious of.
Some readers can not see past a simply list of threes to consider the pattern as being representative of anything, even some ancient idea where the thought processing is more conducive to accepting superstition, religions, mysticism, esotericism and other simple-minded considerations where even the simplest of Algebraic thinking does not occur, much less any calculus. Their model calculus is limited to a listing of threes examples like a primitive viewing a group of notches on a bone, stone, seashell or branch. That is all a list of threes or list of twos, or list of sevens, etc., is to them. A group of notches in the form of words set side by side in a linear fashion that most will not even do the simply task of counting, and instead come away with a silent informed notion of "many", signifying that their mindset is more closely aligned with an early human's beginning efforts to develop a number system that the three-patterned phrase of "one- two= many" can be used as a specified generality. And yet others may look at a list of threes examples and come away with a simple artistic viewpoint like an artist having learned how to sign their work with a handprint.
Yet, there is a desperate need for the phenomena of threes to be explained in a different manner than the current list of ideas from those who do not wish to try and untangle the seemingly disparate examples arising in different subjects, along with the absences and the presence of other patterns which can be enumerated. In doing so, my efforts to ask others their opinions very often becomes met with a defensive posture when I might suggest some alternative to their view, primarily because their suggestion has already been considered but I have not found any plausible means of including or excluding it in a comprehensive philosophy. If I simple let them speak, the questions I pose to myself may be once again voiced, and act as a reminder that I need to find a means to move beyond such simple thinking about the subject. However, this is difficult to do when there are no rational efforts to explain the phenomena other than to look at the views of those who appear in many cases to be mimicking the views of others because they have no original consideration. But it is to be expected when prefer to have an interest in something else they thing is more fun or profitable. Hence, I am left with not to do but create my own view on the subject and hope that in some small way it will benefit who may chance upon the phenomena and do not themselves want to go along with what they perceive to be as nonsense explanations, with respect to their particular interest.
Origination (this page): Sunday, 11th December 2022... 3:00 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Sunday, 11th December 2022... 9:41 AM, AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.