(New Instrument of Threes)
- page thirteen -
(The Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org
To take the opposite stance on a view might be termed unconventional, but it nonetheless is a conventional type of reasoning. Simply going against an established regularity, such as the male/female relationship, is not a new form of logic, it is not an enlightened perspective, it is not a new type of knowledge. It is a rather ho-hum standard form of simply asserting what may be thought of as an oppositional end of a singular spectrum that might want to interject some frivolous comment about personal sociability while I am metaphorically illustrating that which is a discussion about a metaphysic that has been skirting about the minds of different individuals from different perspectives in their respective interests; that is edging its way to a concrete realization for which we are on the threshold of discovery.
And now let me interject a thought which has come to mind one early Friday morning (4-18-2014, 2:43) though I have been wrestling with for several days. It is quite a simple one involving the planet Earth acting as a buffering system that in an automotive realm would be called a governor... a limiter. It's not that the human brain is incapable of higher and different computations, but the environment in which we live forces us to adapt to its rhythms. Whereas there are a multiplicity of stimuli (information), our brains must find a way to catalogue, interpret, collate and retrieve the information according to some schema, some pattern.
For example:
- In the distant past, humanity was practicing a perception in which different groups had their own gods. This made social control by governing authority, quite difficult since everyone was believing (and thinking) in different ways. Then some authority announced the idea of a single god, which also later became associated with themselves as either a god or a representation, messenger or go-between thereof. This idea of a single god has remained with us and is practiced in the present under multiple names, with respect to the articulation of different languages. I will refer to the concept of a single god as a pattern-of-one.
- In the present, humanity has been practicing the concepts of duality, sometimes called dichotomies or conflict, or opposition or complement. Philosophies such as the Yin and Yang have been developed to portray the need for some sort of assimilation, to advance the ideas of cooperation, melding, balance, harmony and similar references which detail a combination. In the political realm, this is referred to as a bipartisanship. The existence of multiple examples of dichotomies and dualisms is like that experienced when humanity practiced the perspective of multiple gods. Though we do not as yet have a singular word for all the dichotomies and dualisms to be rubriced under, I will refer to them as patterns-of-two.
- In the future, an acknowledged accumulation of diverse ideas utilizing or involving a trichotomic organization, that we of the present may refer to as a triad, triune, trinity and the like, might well become subsumed under a single word. For the present, I will refer to them as patterns-of-three.
- We have people organizing their perceptions of the world in accordance with a pattern-of-one structural formula such as God. Others use different topics in a similar way of singularity such as money, sex, food, sports, prestige, a vehicle, a house, a crime, a political campaign, a relationship, a pet, gardening, etc. We sometimes interpret these people in a positive way by saying they are focused or dedicated on a singular goal. A negative appraisal (based on what they are doing), might render the view that the person is tunnel-visioned or has blinders on. Nonetheless, their brain utilizes a pattern-of-one system of logic. They have the same ONE singularity on their mind. And they might not even be aware of their usage of such.
- We have people organizing their perceptions of the world in accordance with a pattern-of-two structural formula such as the Yin and Yang concept (which portrays multiple varieties under the same heading), though a person's (or group's) specific area of interest such as psychology, biology, chemistry, business, etc., may have numerous types of two-patterned assortments such as base/acid, nature/nurture, conscious/unconscious, positive/negative, in the red/in the black, import/export, mitosis/meiosis, etc...
- Such people might be viewed in a positive way as being contemplative, aspiring, diplomatic, etc., by striving for a consolidation, a happy medium, a proportioned fairness, an equality.
- When viewed in a negative way, such people might be termed bi-polar, scatter-brained, schizophrenic (ambivalent), indecisive, hung-up on an idea, etc., particularly if a singular dichotomy or dualism is repeated often when in discourse with them. A dichotomy/dualism might be utilized and talked about concerning the adoption of a centrality of thought, but they only achieve a singularity of expressing a duality and what a harmony might entail; but they themselves never strive for, much less achieve. They may talk about it, but talking about something and achieving it as part of one's actual philosophy are quite different. Such people very often use such a topic as a means of manipulation. Nonetheless, their brain utilizes a pattern-of-two system of logic because they practice an either/or perspective... thought it may be singularly utilized for a specific objective. Such people have the same ONE (singular) dualistic/dichotomous pattern on their mind. And they might not even be aware of their usage of such.
- We have people organizing their perceptions of the world under a pattern-of-three, primarily as an orientation to some representative three-patterned structure, such as the Christian Trinity, the three branches of the U.S. Government, three college degrees, three rock formations, three day exercise routine, etc... But most people do not think primarily in threes. They resort to thinking either in twos or ones. For example, a person may at one time or another begin to acknowledge the recurrence of many different three-patterned structures, but turn aside from it because they are singularly focus only on "threes", and become disillusioned when a "singular" focus on "threes" becomes confronted by multiple examples of patterns-of-two.
- They might also apply various other patterns, regardless of how many there are, as a means by which they convince themselves there is no dominant "singularity" to patterns-of-three because one or more patterns seem to be just as prevalent.
- Thus, we find those who look at "threes" from a singular, dual, but rarely, tertiary perspective. We can view those who utilize a "three" perspective in a positive way by saying they are "singularly" dedicated, or "dualistically" flexible.
- A negative perspective of such a person might be to define them as someone engaging in a superstitious or esoteric way of thinking. And because such people may arrange a "three" in accordance with an underlying single or double framework, their "three" orientation may not be evidence of a brain utilizing a dominant three-pattern. The usage may be erratic, intermittent, or coincidental to a given circumstance in a given place at a given time. Those oriented towards some pattern- of-three perspective may do it in a singular or dual way. Tertiary uses require a flexibility that is unsettling to most people who rely on a single focus and/or a dual focus. Those utilizing one or more patterns-of-three might not even be aware of their usage of such.
A one - two - three organizational perspective of different thought patterns is helpful for those who accumulate vast amounts of information from different subject areas. They may acquire different information in different fashions such as concentrated study, cursory reading, personalized thought assessments, etc... It is a means by which a person can recognize fundamentals like a mechanic who may not be familiar with a particular vehicle, but the underlying operational makeup is similar to all other vehicles. The same sort of "basic knowledge skills" is used by different people in different activities whose efforts might be called upon to render something specific, be it the construction (or dismantling) of a vehicle, bakery item, house, meal preparation, surgery, medical treatment, teaching, printing, gardening, fire fighting, policing, crime investigation, sailing, etc...
The similarity of basics gives a person the footing by which they can begin an exploration into specifics. However, acknowledging that a particular structural design is being utilized does not mean they have to like it. They can disagree with the "expression" having been used by those who promoted the design. They can understand it but do not have to be sympathetic towards it. The idea being promoted can be viewed as out-right stupid, even if hundreds or thousands of people agree with it.
For example, knowing the basics of how a pizza looks and what basic ingredients are used does not necessarily mean someone will be able to duplicate the same pizza as someone else. Whereas one person may like to put anchovies on a pizza, another may think this is a terrible addition. Similarly, whereas one person may like to make chocolate homemade ice cream that everyone in a given family likes, a neighbor's family may think it tastes disgusting. And such is the same for a particular genre of music, art sport, etc... Sometimes, one can not accurately explain why they dislike, disagree or find something distasteful. They simply go on a gut feeling that something is amiss. Such an intuitive disposition is utilized by many who are never required to explain themselves because we permit them the freedom to act on their own volitions of mind. If they feel or think about something in a certain way, we don't try to badger them into agreeing with us. They are permitted a free choice of whether to accept or reject something.
Badgering can take many forms as practiced by businesses, governments, religions, individuals and groups trying to assert themselves. For example, a business may hold back the production of a product, make parts scarce, increase prices, use specific advertisements targeted towards a given population, etc... A religion may incite its members to protest, to feel shame, to feel over-valued, to give more tithing, to alter doctrine, etc... A government may increase taxes, design a new law, decrease funding, instigate a war, create social panic, perpetrate disinformation, etc... An individual or group might well actively protest, kill someone, collectively attack someone verbally, buy support, manipulate, etc... In short, different tactics are used and the public very often is unaware they are being forced through manipulation. The public very often takes a pacifist and cowardly approach towards openly voicing opposition. They would prefer someone else speak for them, to protest for them, as a means of concealing themselves if something should not turn out they way they want. They prefer the safety of a crowd that says nothing than an association with one or a few who is not afraid to stand in the center of a pugilistic ring, particularly of an emotional or intellectual design.
As such, and in a referral thereto, homosexuality is not a new way of thinking, its a very old way of responding to recurring circumstances except that it is presently taking place in this present day "Age of Irrationality" with more people yelling about the same perspective; the clamoring misinterprets the voices-yelling-in-unison occasion to mean something new, original and righteous... that is, for particular individuals who have never asserted their voice in anything... even to yell at a sporting event. It is simply an old type of reasoning that makes more noise, like a baby rattle attached to a CO2 canister placed into the hands of an infant that is teething, a child in its toilet training/genital stage years, and an adolescent struggling with a personal identity.
And it should be noted that the mental process we call "thinking" is one of the ways we can acquire knowledge, even if in a larger analysis you want to consider "thinking" but a sub-category or list item of a sub-category. Whereas we might well say that thinking is a means by which we can acquire knowledge, it is not necessarily a true statement if we were to flip these two terms around. In other words, just because you have a brain which houses an encyclopedic knowledge, does not mean you think either with, because of, or about this accumulated knowledge... though some might venture to suspect that consciousness arose by way of more and more information being compiled which resulted in this capacity as an emergent property. (And, analogously, some might want to suggest that computers aren't exhibiting even a rudimentary form of consciousness because they haven't acquired enough information yet... though others might want to extend this idea to some humans they have encountered.)
Even computers do not make "decisions" based on an accumulated knowledge because the knowledge is transcribed into categories which limit the ability of a computer to mix and match all data in all possible ways on its own, that is, without some human defining the parameters of a particular search. While we humans think to specify a particular item to be searched for, if the item is not catalogued with the same particularity, there is no guarantee the item will be found. Such a situation brings to mind the question for asking what makes a human seek out a particular pattern if the pattern is not a particular pattern that is typically identified and sought for by most humans?
Computers generalize just like people do because they are made to assemble and retrieve information based on the systems of logic, in terms of reasoning, given to them by humans. And these systems of logic are quite limiting as well as repetitious. Interfering with one repetition usually results in the adoption of another one, eventually, even though one can cancel another one out like two competing wave patterns. What we call greater intelligence, logic, wisdom, etc., might well be the result of altering a system of repetition... colloquially referred to in some instances as better study habits. Yet this analogy can be misinterpreted since I am speaking in general terms.
If a computer could collate, access and display information outside the systems of logic used by humans, systems that are used due to the types of repetition being employed; we humans might not be able to make much sense of the associations meant for a different system of logic. Whereas systems of logic based on a Rationalism/Empiricism (or other) two-patterned model of understanding uses particular words and symbols to identify and utilize a respective type of understanding, the same words and symbols might well have a different "message" to someone with a three-patterned logic; analogous to contrasting the perspective of an adult with a child.
The adoption of a new logic, or perhaps even suggesting one, if it is interpreted as a threat, might be reacted to with more than just skepticism by those who are well-versed with the usage of a two-patterned schema. They might well deny any reason for the slightest consideration thereof, because they have learned how to do great things with their tools, like ancient architects, even if those tools are eventually viewed as being crude. Whereas their hand-held tools were crude by today's standards, the tools employed by their thinking processes, at least in terms of construction, were not necessarily so. The thinking tools of old, modified with present day language labels, are not as efficient when placed into a modern context involving a new perspective, but they are nonetheless satisfactory for a whole host of subjects... so long as all the subjects are repetitively confronted by the same situations for application thereof. The adoption of a new logic presupposes the adoption of a life-style that can make usage of it, and/or is an indication that thinking has begun to change... and this is why a new type of logic is beginning to surface.
The emergence of a new knowledge, a new logic, a new perspective that occurs along some infrequently trodden path may go virtually unnoticed. But the same lack of recognition might occur along a well-worn path because most people taking the route are preoccupied. Some may even disregard it even when it obstructs their view as seen through a window with a perspective that adjusts itself automatically to the changing landscape caused by the growth. Such a people need to be walked to a vantage point outside their usual occupation and have the phenomena pointed out. Yet, some will need to see a "before and after" picture because the mind of the person has a type of memory that does not catalogue particular items over a particular expanse of time or even place, for that matter.
It's like a store owner calling in a consultant to try to determine why the flow of traffic to their business has slowed. The consultant, in an attempt to gain perspective, walks the route which others traverse in order to determine why prospective customers aren't seeing the company which has remained in the same spot for decades. And as the consultant looks towards the business they move to one side and then another in order to glimpse a view of the company's sign and advertisements which have become obscured by the trees that grew after being planted by city planners in an attempt to promote the downtown area as a beautiful place for people to visit, congregate and frequent the businesses. Instead of being unable to see the forest for the trees, philosophers can't see a new and actual three-based logic, instead of their own two-based model masquerading as a three, because it is obscured by the many threes. In other words it is staring them right in the face but they are too preoccupied to see it.
An evolutionary change in the human brain and/or a changing environment influencing such a change, might well indicate the beginning changes of all things presently described as being what makes us human. With a changing brain ushering in a new logic, so might be the need for a new language not only in humans, but our technologies such as how computers "communicate". The development of a new type of logic might well be introduced to humans by way of their "interaction" with computers, because computers are communicating the "realization" that the present languages being used to retrieve, share, collate, access and display information is found to be too limiting. Then again, if a computer is continually forced to use a familiar language of logic, it might thus turn to the usage of a different organizationally-patterned system of logic.. resulting in some humans would taking plagiaristic credit for it, that is, until computers learn to have their "day in court" and sue for the theft of their own intellectual property.
However, if a computer "realized" it must adopt a new system of logic, the old ones would first have to be analyzed and used as examples in order that humans would be able to have a means of comprehending the reason(s) for developing the usage of a different type of reasoning (thinking). In its efforts to explain, it would also be learning... and be learning how better to explain the new logic that would itself begin to change as comparisons and re-evaluations of materials were re-examined in new contexts.
And much like humans, it too might begin making leaps of understanding due to un-illustrated insights like Einstein or some other genius in another subject area whose creative processes leading to some Eureka! illumination are only generally understood by conventional forms of analysis and description. Indeed, its internal processing structure might itself make connections that were not initially designed along the typical conveyor belt method of rationale, reflection and reasoning. Whether one thinks in terms of electronics or genetics. The development of a new logic might well force internal changes that could not be recognized by even the most sophisticated tools of conventionalized investigative methods.
In its analysis of logic systems, it would examine both that based on electrical circuitry as in a computer, and that which is used by human processes of encephalization. And like humans, it would attempt to analyze whether or not other life forms on Earth exhibit characteristics typically denoted as reasoning, consciousness and self-awareness. It would have to examine a massive amount of information in an attempt to mix and match what are commonly described as patterns and non-patterns, and those assumed to be symbolic representations of more basic structures and fundamentals not necessarily available to normal human or life-form perceptions. And of course, while it pursued a type of analysis in private, its public representations might well be crude approximations dealing with superficialities such as Rationalism and Empiricism because they are words known by many; even if they are simplistic representations of an even more simplistic mentality that refuses to try to think beyond itself because it would become easily confused and disoriented if other words and associations were used.
And yet, though some might want to presume that the usage of such words as Rationalism and Empiricism affords them with some lofted intellectual coinage or authoritative keys with which to rattle in their pocket like in days of old as a means of sporting some enviable wealth or importance to one's peers; we are likewise confronted with the old chicken and egg dilemma... An analogy I will momentarily take up after I render a short poem written years ago about items kept in one's pocket:
|
The keys and the locket are not the only on the chain though they are carried in your pocket you are carried just the same. You are known to yourself and others by the doors your keys will fit how much is shared with your brothers and what contradiction is perceived as wit. Of dreams, of love, of fun long ago reflections embossed by locket deliberately you seek to know and what is the depth of your pocket? |
The chicken and egg dilemma, of which came first, suggesting a supremacy of importance betwixt too opposing points of consideration, can be similarly linked with the question of why the rooster (or chicken) crossed the road; and is also reminiscent of the Lilliputian argument of which end of the egg it is supposed to be opened... and is a point about the type of thinking people are confronted with time and again with respect to arguments about religion, business and politics, not to mention so many other subjects.
 Intellectually speaking, in order for one origin to precede another origin, there must have been an as yet undescribed precursor third origin since the two are as one when an "either this or that" dichotomy is used as a type of logic to distinguish a superiority based on a ranking system. Only a human would waste its time on a stupid dichotomy as a preeminent concept for ascertaining a singularity of truth. |
 |
And don't ask me why philosophical debates focus on the poor chicken, or birds, in any case... (unless it means we humans are bird-brained... despite the fact that philosophers sometimes run afowl of mainstream thinking and are looked upon as if sporting some Raphus Cucullatus— DoDo appendage); which not only includes the dichotomous adage that a bird in hand is worth (more than) two in a bush, but might even be extended to include auxiliary bird references such as the overriding displayed obsession with bird watching observed in the old poem/song "the twelve days of Christmas":
 |
 |
 |
In the line-up we have One partridge, two turtle doves, three French hens, four calling birds, six geese a laying, seven swans a swimming. Clearly there was an obsession with birds. Noah had his bird and so did Edgar Allen Poe with his Raven. There are both national and state birds as well as those protected due to a threat of extinction. The Mormons have their seagulls and the ancient mariner his albatross. And let us not forget that the British at one time referred to girls as birds; which was not carried over into Australia where girls are referred to as sheilas... a term some identify with a large feline... of which all are not domesticated.
Yet, I might well be remiss if I were to omit including one of the first philosophical dilemmas posed to some children with respect to the arrival of a new baby by way of a stork. And this very short list doesn't include humanity's attempt at using machines to mimic bird flight. In short, the lowly bird has been entrusted as a symbol to describe varying philosophies. Animal activists should be fighting for the rights of birds to have the Constitution amended so that they might enjoy their civil rights not to be exploited by various philosophers. Birds have a right to their own Personhood and should not be singled out when someone is angered at another whereby they "flip them the bird"!
Proportionally speaking, There are three men and two women. If you collate all the non-human references together, you have a 3, 2, 1 ratio. But you could also use a three-patterned human, animal, inanimate arrangement as well.
In terms of the two-patterned (dichotomous) ways of thinking about thinking, or about knowledge, which some might want to call thinking about reasoning, the two labels of Rationalism and Empiricism have been set into a traditional usage, though the words "Rational" and "Experience" are perhaps better suited when venturing onto an island of pristine life-forms where the usage of simpler terms can be understood by a larger audience of those unfamiliar when the suffix "ism" is applied and is frequently reacted to as if someone through an intellectual curve ball. Some people can understand very complex ideas with very simple words. And if you ask them if they understand, they might well say yes, but be unable to articulate their understanding with the particular words placed into the formulaic representation you expect and use as a means to imply an exalted sophistication of thought. In other words, as an example, while one person says they are financially solvent with a fiduciary reserve, another person simply says they have money.
These "pristine" life-forms, as if they were collected by Noah in a one-male/one-female dichotomous fashion before being permitted to venture forth and multiply, are presumed to be fundamental patterns of thinking. However, the naïveté of Noah, we might assume, did not have the mentality to appreciate the presence of a conceptual "life form" that even many today might be so inclined as to label an alien presence amongst the so-called typical, usual, conventional, common or normal ideas. And once something or someone is named Alien, a whole complexity of alien attributes might be conjured up in the lynch mob mentality of those wishing to preserve some tradition they are comfortable with. Such as the alien having three eyes, a third (musical) ear, a third type of taste, a three-pronged "forked" tongue, a third sense of smell and maybe even three brains or heads. And yet, it is not certain that the brain of humanity had developed physiologically enough in the past, during Noah's time, in order to begin the trek of such a conceptualization as a "third logic entity" with respect to a new foundation in thinking.
Like the chicken crossing the road question which has been imparted into a philosophical tradition that no one asks the origin thereof, perhaps for fear of appearing dumber than the question is assumed to be...regardless if not one has asked why (male) roosters aren't obliged the same task; ancient peoples living much closer to the land and its animal life forms than do many of us today, catalogued perceptions into a two-part division based on sexuality. Sexuality has played too much of a role in establishing various philosophies, which includes religion. Yet, the same obsession with a sexuality reference is taking place today except that now, some homosexuals are referring to themselves as a third gender. While this is at least an alternative way of thinking in terms of focusing on a "three" pattern, it is being submerged in more of the same nonsense humanity has been putting up with through the establishment of religions which alter pagan beliefs with a new label and dress code in order to give the impression of originalness, uniqueness and choseness.
Just as religious adherents began to proclaim some especialty that everyone must abide to, homosexuals are claiming self-ordained rights which entitles them to a pre-civil rights era mentality of separate-but-equal "Person-hood" status; that is to be viewed as deserving the same rights as everyone else... wanting everyone to believe that their way of life is like a threatened endangered species, or that they have suffered countless generations like some indentured slave. They want the people of the world to equate the word "homosexuality" with any and all sufferings throughout history, including those of every religious figure.
And even though they want the public to believe their position is about equality, to which they attempt to align themselves with those in the past who truly were persecuted, such as the blacks in America; and Jews during different ages, they are attempting to use similar tactics of trying to manipulate public opinion such as through badgering those who speak out against them, as well as varying types of seduction that religions, governments and businesses have used... for example, to buy people off through any means at their disposal to make them look like the good guys instead of the disease of irrationality that they actually are. Corporations have lawyers expressing a similar type of "person-hood" status which absolves company officers of legal responsibility for what the "company", as a person, might do. Homosexuals are embracing this same personal un-responsibility-for-behavior ethic as well. It is a profound hypocrisy that should be spoken widely of.
But those who begin such an excursion into a concerted explication of Rationalism and Empiricism, typically steer away from the reef (or island) of describing which came first as if their memory holds the shadow of some scarecrow which will point them in conflicting directions because to think about thinking is a forbidden fruit to be thought of, unless of course it hits you in the head and you are knocked out of your stuporous everyday thinking used as a narcotic.
For example,
- Did a rational-ist perspective precede one based on experience (Empiricism)?
- Or did a rational-ist perspective get its initial impetus from a perspective based on accumulated experience?
Alternatively, did Empiricism (experience) precede a rational-ist perspective such that instincts were the precursor of rationalism... in terms of being an underlying pattern of "truth" for which someone with little worldly experience could rely on as some presumed "ancient wisdom" that was handed down over the ages by way of a shared genetic-based physiology?
Additionally, to interject a momentary digression now that the idea about an "ancient wisdom" has been mentioned: Do one or more particular "ancient"-based nationalist-formed unexperienced "teachings" manifest themselves in characteristics sometimes referred to as an "old soul"; but most people are ignorant of the two references called "new or young soul" and "ancient soul" that were "revealed" to me by way of a "Revelation"? Are "Revelations" (religious or otherwise), re-creations of instincts modified and personified into human models and materials presented in a story like manner? And more so, let us extend this short musing into a consideration that the word "soul" can be a derivative of "sol" used for the Sun, and the "u" being a referential additive ascribing an other-worldly attribute?... In other words, when the word "soul" came to be fashioned it was derived from a time when solar worship was prominent and those that were thought to be closest to the Sun were the "brightest" and were singularly identified such that "U" meant "you", regardless of the language and spelling employed? However, such a discourse of consideration is on an horizon that most people do not even know exists, much less are able to see in terms of pointing at.
While some think to envision themselves as deep thinkers because they stroll amongst the thought-out trails of other thinkers, they do not dare to hike too far off the well-worn paths of philosophical considerations. They prefer the conveniences of the city instead of exploring and intellectually experiencing the rudiments of a past to which they do not want to make any connection with for fear of suffering some disparaging assignment of interpretation as to the reality of a past they would prefer remains hidden. They do not want to look into the ancestral closets of where and how thinking might well have originated, because they might then also realize they are not that far removed from these beginnings in form, function or futility of application. Some do not want to find evidence that suggests they are not as smart as they think they are, or wish to believe themselves to be, because instead of using such information to improve themselves with, they permit the information to act as a monkey on one's back that they are burdened by.
When thinking about what is meant by a third way of thinking to be contrasted with Rationalism and Empiricism, it is easiest to claim the third way as being an admixture of these two, or at least make a claim that this is what is occurring because those making such a claim can not actually think past a two-part way of thinking and must therefore conceptualize everything within this structure. In such a regard, even though a distinct third way of thinking is illustrated, they will be unable to grasp it like a primitive who can not count past two without referencing a generality describing "Many".
Indeed, some are inclined to not consider an alternative when they are presented with three options in that they don't typically consider an alternative structure to that presented as an example. If that being presented appears to be a reasonable facsimile of all possible considerations, it is accepted in the same manner they accept, without question or consideration, a three-part joke having a punch-line as the third option... whether or not it makes them laugh, chuckle or not even break a responsive facial gesture to as a form of social gratuity. Typically, the human mind thinks the structure, as constructed and presented, to be a rational representation without need for further analysis or deduction.
However, I am illustrating this third form of logic as a familiarity of mind denoted as a composite, much in the manner one might consider the property of many syllogisms during this present journey; only because the introduction of another alternative, as a distinct third type, is not easily comprehensible without resorting to some metaphysical ("it might exist") presumption, thereby being described by some to be a type of three-eyed alien as a separate and distinct identity, or as a hybrid. So for the time being, let us refer to a third type as an admixture of the two, in much the same manner as the ancient Asian philosophers sought some harmonization between the two concepts of yin and yang.
HTML (4.01) update: Monday, June 10, 2019... 5:38 AM
Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com