(New Instrument of Threes)
- page fourteen -
(The Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org
And it should be noted that although the two were combined into a whole, this alone was not enough, though it might well have been sufficient during the initial stages of developing the philosophy. As noted, afterwards, they developed a third concept which fused the third into a third. Hence, a distinction should be made between the two in a single philosophy and the two "procreating" a third item. This is like a man and woman joining together to live under one roof and then "deciding" a third (offspring) was needed. However, too many people get caught up in this type of analogy as a means of supporting their own philosophies. They rely on a past philosophy to support their "offspring" instead of permitting the actual existence of a totally new entity.
The introduction of a new way of thinking sometimes requires a slow process of introduction in order that it may be assimilated without producing an unnecessary level of disorientation... and is similar to the means by which the Chinese government is introducing Democracy into the minds (and life-style) of the people so as not to create unnecessary chaos and social instability. However, unbeknownst to the world— is that Democracy, in all its various formulas being practice, may well prove to be the undoing of humanity's efforts to improve itself.
As a simple statement of definition, Rationalism is knowledge acquired without experience and Empiricism is knowledge acquired by Experience. And while the reader may be inclined to jump ahead in the process of consideration to mix and match characteristics and qualities attributable to their own way of thinking, as if to posture their ego by claiming they are more intelligent because of, the point, for the moment, is to make simple statements in order to work out some ideas with subsequent sequential additions. In other words, hold your horses from jumping the gun... particularly since we're not in a race.
So, let's begin anew now that everybody has their hands on the anchor chain and we can hoist it up at the same time:
Rationalism is frequently defined as the idea where knowledge can be deduced from reality without the need for experience; which can alternatively be a reference to experimentation. Yet these same references fail to acknowledge, in the same context, that Rationalism is also aligned with the perspective that there exists underlying structures of truth in reality, which embody an unimpeachable logic; whereby experience has no merit in assisting with the realization thereof because such truth(s) exist despite experience. However, discovering these underlying structures (or "forms") of truth is not quite so easy since "experience" is vaguely defined and does not entail an illustration of that which refers to a particular individual in a particular setting, or at all.
Empiricism is frequently defined as the idea where knowledge can be acquired based on experiences, that, in a basic sense, do not include (formal) experimentation. From this can be derived the notion of knowledge acquired without a structure (or "form"), or simply stated, it is knowledge obtained informally.
Rationalism and Empiricism are two forms of knowledge acquisition that rely on guesses, even though they may be defined as educated guesses, otherwise noted as assumptions. In as much as they are both rational, that is, derived from what is presumed to be a rational being; and irrespective if you favor one over the other, they are also perspectives of truth derived from rationalizations. "Rationalizations" are truths which are made to appear consistent with a perceived reality. And this perceived reality remains a rationalization even if one or millions of people claim to witness (believe) the same thing. A single person as well as a crowd of people, even an entire nation or entire species, can be mistaken. An entire species can be wrong and right at the same time, just like a nation, neighborhood, or single person. Just because millions of people believe in a religious doctrine doesn't mean it is true in terms of negating the existence of one or more other greater truths that may have nothing whatsoever to do with humanity. Whereas humanity exists and that existence is true, as far as we can ascertain reality; but this doesn't mean everything humans believe in are accurate truths. The expression that "Reality is a State of Mind" has become an urban legend, just has other ideas have periodically cropped up as similar manifestations by those who think about reality but confine themselves to resulting definitions which earmark their indulgence of accepting a conventional way of thinking about reality. You must move past this to think more clearly. The three words "Realty", "State", and "Mind" are part of the obsession of a past era that must not be transplanted into the future through the minds of the young. Don't let them convince themselves that this "mind-stated-reality" formula is preeminently synonymous with E = MC2. If a person is smart enough to convince themselves to believe in a particular perception-of-reality formula, then they are smart enough to unconvince themselves and develop a more accurate equation. Take a breath and get a second wind. Far too many cultures on University campuses are instigating and perpetuating an Age of Irrationality; of which homosexuality is a part... and is similar to the atmosphere which prevailed on German Campuses while the Nazis were needling their way into a social force. It is the same type of mentality which permitted the Nazis to take over. Intellectuals so often breed an unredemptive cowardice. It is a supreme embarrassment to know those with Mensa level I.Q.s have not the courage to speak their minds in public what they are saying against homosexuality in private. In a public battle of wits against homosexuality, they have thus far turn tail and run into the confines of the Mensa organization as if it were a castle protected by some force field generated by their combined mental energy which protects them from any and all ignorance and insanity being perpetrated in the world. Shooting them for desertion from the real world outside their self-built barricade would be of little loss since they don't do anything with their high I.Q.'s except play stupid intellectual parlor games... |
Continuing: Using the previous definitions of Rationalism and Empiricism, we can state:
Rationalism is a form-al type of rationalization and Empiricism is an in/un-form-al type. There also is a third, which enlists variations of these two, which some might want to claim offsets the less desirable qualities of the two.
Academically focused brands of rationalism are inclined to stress a "form"-ality such as with a rule-of-thumb like that encountered with a syllogism found in philosophy.
A "common person" focused brand of rationalism is inclined to stress some desired "inform"-ality based on a perceived need defined as practicality; such as the making of money by any means and labeling it "business", no matter how deceitful or what method of "exaggeration" is used as a tool of persuasion or bartering (i.e. "informing" someone of a product's value).
An Academically focused brand of Empiricism may use the "form"-ality of statistics to validate assumed claims based on some notion of derived probability.
A "common person" focused brand of Empiricism may a product of the "inform"-ality they have been subjected to in their given sphere of collected and collated information.
Every human activity is based on some form of rationalism and empiricism that might be said to be practiced by many others with personalized variations. Even instincts born of a long-term exposure to a specific environment can be said to be a physiological form of rationalism and empiricism. Hence, the terms "rationalism and empiricism" need not be confined to the rule-of-thumb rationalism of mental activity alone. Whereas some may claim that instincts are not wrought by way of reasoning, they are nonetheless constructs of a reality which exist apart from the convention of normalized perception of one's mind. In one sense, instincts are a necessary requirement of adaptation to an environment whose "constant" requires a repetitive physiological response as a form-ality of survival.
If you are a reader who has not taken the time to consider the phenomena of instincts, you might be inclined to believe there are three basic instincts as is portrayed by the foregoing image. While they are three examples occasionally given, there are others such as territoriality, various fears such as of snakes and spiders, and, if you consider Sigmund Freud's view, a life and death instinct. Yet, if one thinks about it, and uses a general as opposed to some specific criteria as a means of supporting some preconceived consideration that one feels they need to defend; we might even want to include such things as reflexes, body functions, and all positive, negative or neutral responses due to the chemistry of our physiology.
For example, is a blinking of the eyes reflex, an instinct? How about seeing images in clouds or using anthropomorphisms? Or do we prefer to say that instincts are more complex behaviors? Are we unknowingly categorizing by way of a reasoning that uses an underlying three-patterned formula... thus we conceive of instincts of three types based on the notions of complex behavior, simple behavior and some variation in between? Is the usage of a "three"-based formula a truth of nature, of culture, of both or some third criteria not yet deduced because we are being submerged into accepting the reality of a socialized Age of Irrationality that insists on a dichotomous perception even though it may speak of three things to give the impression of being progressive?
But, instincts are being developed in response to artificial environments. When the consistency of these environments become disrupted and no new artificial environment replaces the dysfunctional one which was an illusion, the systems of Rationalism and Empiricism will be disrupted, resulting in dissonance and discordance termed social disharmony. With continued disruption, riots may will ensue in a "fight fire with fire" mentality expressed as "fight chaos with chaos".
Thereafter, these small riots may well turn to massive social Revolutions in a misguided attempt to "make things right or whole again", as if in simply replacing the old leadership with a new leadership will produce some imagined once-lived-in fairy tale called the "olden days" of one's childhood when the world may not have been perfect, had at least some understood irrationality being practiced by a labeled rationality.
Such is the inevitability of all current social orders whose governments refuse to address very serious environmental problems brought on by various human-based activities revolving around greed, power and control. No presently practiced system of religion, governance nor business venture will provide the necessary answers for a resolution. They will have to change. It is very difficult to prepare a society for collectively experiencing a period of "punctuated evolution". While many agree with the notion of evolution, they think of it in terms of as a process occurring gradually over long expanses of time and not a circumstance that can take place in a very short expanse of time.
The people are clinging so strongly to the "Rationalist/Empiricist" model of thinking, and using compounds thereof to suggest a progression there from; that they are unprepared to make the transition to an actual third form without deep pains, like a child being weaned from a bottle, pacifier or security blanket. And those who think they are intelligent enough to do so will nonetheless feel the same effects because their lives are inextricably inter-twined with the overall functioning of society. They will be swept up in the many forms of irrationality already beginning to surface... simply because they are followers of the herd. If we apply the Truths and Beliefs model to a simple arithmetic formula:
- Truths = 1
- Beliefs = 1
- 1 + 1 = 2 (Knowledge)
The purpose for using this very elementary formula is to illustrate not only the absence of 3, but that subtraction, division and multiplication are not being used in the formula, but they are being toyed with in personal attempts to find different ways of doing the same formula, like one person counting on their fingers, another counting by associating other objects at some visualized distance as well as other personalized techniques.. That which is being given the label of "knowledge" is not, in fact, a separate third entity of logic. While it is being counted as the "third", and being presented as a third, this is an illusion of language supported by culture. It is the same thing we encounter when we look at the so-called I-Ching "Trigrams" which display three divisions but only two lengths of lines are used, as was previously mentioned in the preface page. The so-called Trigrams are actually Bi-grams. It is like a third "sanitizing" sink being applied to the separate wash and rinse sinks seen in restaurants. While many homes still have single sinks, and some have dual sinks in their kitchens, there is no typical four-sink usage either residentially or commercially.
While this last analogy may have lost some readers, what I am describing is the existence of mere add-ons. While we may use the sinks for different processes of a wash and rinse sequence, they are still sinks. Likewise, while we may re-label the usage of Rationalism and Empiricism, the fundamental structure of thinking has not changed to include an actual third separate entity. "Knowledge" is an add-on and is not a separate entity. Whereas some readers may be familiar with the concepts of Yin and Yang, they may be unfamiliar that these two have been amalgamated together to produce the concept of "Unity" that was previously denoted as Harmony.
Once again, take a close look at the Trigrams so that you can appreciated what is being said that they are actually Bigrams. This example brings to the fore the recognition that the I-Ching Trigrams are actually Bigrams. Whereas we see groupings of "three" lines and call the groupings "Trigrams", there are actually only two types of lines organized in a pattern-of-three way. Thus a representative 2 = 1 formula is present; in that two different lengths of lines are used to represent a singular concept referenced as a "three" with the usage of the word "Trigram".
| These so-called Trigrams are actually Bigrams (with two different line types)  With short and long lines |
3-lines |
The distinction between the "two" and "three"-based concept variations is necessary in order to highlight where humanity is and which way it is directed. But the fact remains that even while we may use multiple "three-part" formulas in different subjects, and even have a government with a three-part structure such as the three branches of government in America, its functionality is not typically three-based. For example, even though the Congress is one of the three branches, it has an underlying two-part structure with respect to the Senate and House of Representative. An actual three-part structure would be the implementation of a third element such as a Peoples Legislative section. Additionally, all three existing branches of government frequently attempt to act as a separate and dominant entity, with compromises not as an act of amalgamation, but a slice, dice and puzzle-piece rearrangement to advantage the perspective of one branch over another. Too many of those in government still think in patterns-of-two, not to mention having to deal with other countries whose governments rely on some personally formulated two-patterned antiquated Rationalist/Empiricist model.
Philosophers, Sociologists and Political Scientists must prepare the public for the eventuality of the very many to-be-disrupted "Rationalizations" (Rationalisms and Empiricisms) by putting into place the to-be-needed re-form-alized and re-in-form- alized types of Rationalism and Empiricism by way of providing the outline of a new form of governing structure that might well be termed a Cenocracy (New Rule, New Government, New Peoples Rule, New Peoples Government); regardless of what its eventual structure might be as opposed to an initial, introductory application. You can not resort to the usage of makeup, clothing, or mere re-labeling of old social structure forms. You can use elements thereof, but it must present the emergence of a greater independence so that the people can deal directly with issues which all present governing systems are refusing to address on a needed global scale.
Whereas I have encountered those who feel that their present government structure, though perhaps not perfect, is the best yet available. And these same people, in their own way also feel that they are, for the most part, devoid of using any kind of superstition. In fact, they would deny the active observance of any superstition. Yet, their wariness for not using or at least publicly exhibiting some superstition is itself a superstition. In short, they are superstitious about superstitions, just like so many other varieties of ideas observed and are otherwise labeled or defined. While some believe superstitions are references to ill omens, they need not be, since, for example, if you believe you have a lucky number, this a type of superstitious charm against some superstitious harm.
For some to be against any and all superstitions is a rule-of-thumb they live by, as if in believing themselves to have "escaped" the chain of this particular wide-spread mental activity of superstitious observance; means they think they think more accurately, more logically, more rationally... based on personal experience, and all the "more better"... which is a rule-of-thumb measured by a very large thumb that is washed, waxed and vacuumed every weekend, just like many hand-me-down family rules-of-thumb. Such is the case with those who think they have mastered an understanding of the Rationalist/Empiricist paradigm, and yet rely on it as if they were presenting an actual third form of logic consideration!
HTML (4.01) update: Monday, June 10, 2019... 5:39 AM
Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com