The Barcode Model of Evolution
Oh My God!
Pg. 5
Origin of 3s Hunters as of 10/17/2024
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
Humorously, it's like paying witness to an inter-generational appearance of triplets, or single-triplet structures such as one dog with three heads, or the concept of a 3rd eye (meditation), or 3rd ear (music), or some other organizational theme of three, which should not be construed to mean they occur in the same place at the same time in the same century by the same race of people or same gender. As such, in this sense, there is no telling how many times the reader may have been born and thus constitutes a triplet state of being that may have taken several centuries to form. Whereas some say that everyone has or has had a double, it may be the case for triples as well. Hence, Jesus, Mohammed and the Buddha may be the same person (or same soul) having arisen in three different time periods in relation to the state of mind humanity was experiencing, similar to the view that the 3 great monotheistic religions were born in desert environments and not Jungle, Prairie or Tundra environments.
And while thinking of it, let me make a reference to the singlet-triplet energy states: (Difference Between Singlet and Triplet State). The singlet/triplet pairing is a common discussion, and not a singlet/doublet, doublet/triplet, triplet/quadruplet, etc...
If you were to collect all the three-patterned concepts used by religion, one might find the bulk of which had their genesis in a given area within a given time period. Even though you may speak of thousands of years, the continued creation of new ideas with the same pattern has tapered off. For example, it matters not if the Triumrti, Egyptian triads, Mythological triads and Christian Trinity are still discussed, they remain old discussions with later born languages in developed contortions put into different contexts. In other words, they are not new ideas. Much like the invention of the wheel, horse harness, and discovery of fire. One can argue quite successfully that a building with three stories is the same building even if you add additional floors. We do not give the building a new name to highlight the number of floors, windows or doors... or for that matter, how many toilets, elevators or lights it has. Whereas you can add another three-patterned idea to the already several that exist in Buddhism— Buddhism is still an old view, albeit with later born additions. So are the Trimurti, Trinity and various triads. But additions to old ideas are not called Skyscrapers. Nor were the pyramids. Nor is the Binomial Nomenclature used in biology, or the binary language of computers. And for that matter, if we stacked the letters of the alphabet one atop of the other and called them rooms or apartments, would we call it a skyscraper construct? How about a stack of encyclopedias or geological stratifications?
If we define a skyscraper as a structure with a steel skeleton, then perhaps anything with a skeleton can be viewed as a type of multi-cellular-covered skyscraper. From the perspective of an ant or even small puppy, a person can look like a tall skyscraper. However, the point is that a series of philosophical exercises discussing a topic can be viewed as a skyscraper (albeit laid on its side) that has been added to with additional layers, be it layers of a footing, roof, walls, rooms, basement, attic closets, stairways, toilets, staircases, plumbing or electrical configurations. The analogy is workable, so long as you are not a reader stuck in a singular frame of mind.
However, we don't use words, ideas or language in as broad a sense as we might claim we do. What we practice is sometimes referred to as functional fixedness. Humanity is very narrow in its thinking and behavior. Perhaps because we are habitual creatures or we are habitual creatures because of a fixed functionality of our conceptual leanings. A very good example is when discussing functional fixedness itself. We routinely encounter the illustration or worded display of a hammer and nail as an explanation that a person engaged in functional fixedness is one who only uses a hammer for putting in or pulling out nails. It would never be seen as a nut cracker, door stop, or weight to be tied to the end of a rope to be used for throwing a rope over some overhead dead tree branch in order to pull it down instead of calling some expensive tree trimming and removal service. (If the hammer slips off you may need to find some additional means of securing it to the rope such as tape or added ties. However, if this fails, it is too dangerous to be used, especially if others are nearby.)
- Functional Fixedness in Psychology.
- Functional Fixedness Bias, and how to overcome it.
- Functional Fixedness: Why do we have trouble thinking outside the box?
And though we describe "functional fixedness" as if it is an expression of Narrow Thinking, the use of a repeating pattern is a type of fixed function of enumeration. Why use a repeating value for multiple items when there is an infinity of numbers unless it has functionableness in an environment which influences its usage as a survival mechanism? Despite increasing complexity in multiple cases, there arises the value of "three". However, those who have been thinking in terms of selective functionality (or functional selectivity), have not reached the point of assessment of recognizing that such a state of functionality often involves a pattern-of-three as a recurring "configurational state":
On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems
Michael L. Wong https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8212-3036
Carol E. Cleland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8703-7580
Daniel Arend Jr., and Robert M. Hazen https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4163-8644 rhazen@carnegiescience.edu
Contributed by Jonathan I. Lunine; received July 8, 2023; accepted September 10, 2023;
Reviewed by David Deamer, Andrea Roli, and Corday Seldon
October 16, 2023; 120 (43) e2310223120; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2310223120
SignificanceThe universe is replete with complex evolving systems, but the existing macroscopic physical laws do not seem to adequately describe these systems. Recognizing that the identification of conceptual equivalencies among disparate phenomena were foundational to developing previous laws of nature, we approach a potential “missing law” by looking for equivalencies among evolving systems. We suggest that all evolving systems—including but not limited to life—are composed of diverse components that can combine into configurational states that are then selected for or against based on function. We then identify the fundamental sources of selection—static persistence, dynamic persistence, and novelty generation—and propose a time-asymmetric law that states that the functional information of a system will increase over time when subjected to selection for function(s).
AbstractPhysical laws—such as the laws of motion, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics—codify the general behavior of varied macroscopic natural systems across space and time. We propose that an additional, hitherto-unarticulated law is required to characterize familiar macroscopic phenomena of our complex, evolving universe. An important feature of the classical laws of physics is the conceptual equivalence of specific characteristics shared by an extensive, seemingly diverse body of natural phenomena. Identifying potential equivalencies among disparate phenomena—for example, falling apples and orbiting moons or hot objects and compressed springs—has been instrumental in advancing the scientific understanding of our world through the articulation of laws of nature. A pervasive wonder of the natural world is the evolution of varied systems, including stars, minerals, atmospheres, and life. These evolving systems appear to be conceptually equivalent in that they display three notable attributes:
- They form from numerous components that have the potential to adopt combinatorially vast numbers of different configurations.
- Processes exist that generate numerous different configurations.
- Configurations are preferentially selected based on function.
We identify universal concepts of selection—static persistence, dynamic persistence, and novelty generation—that underpin function and drive systems to evolve through the exchange of information between the environment and the system. Accordingly, we propose a “law of increasing functional information”: The functional information of a system will increase (i.e., the system will evolve) if many different configurations of the system undergo selection for one or more functions.
Incredibly, the group uses patterns-of-three in the discussion, yet never recognize the persistence of the threes pattern in biological systems! And as for the view that there may be a second arrow of time, we might consider there exists three arrows of time. (Note: I prefer the title: "functional roles of selective(ly) evolving systems")
Here is the short video which I saw the day before hunting down more information:
Is there a second arrow of time
Needless to say, I will give an effort to contact them and illustrate the persistent recurrence of patterns-of-three in the sphere of biology.
As a follow up, I contacted Dr. Robert Hanzen and received a nice reply that I fully appreciate:
Dear Herb,
Thanks for contacting me. Yours is one of more than 100 varied responses to our recent work.
All of us in science look for patterns in nature, but I am not an enthusiast of numerology. Newton was obsessed with the number 7--hence the 7 colors of the rainbow (ROYGBIV) where few others would have distinguished indigo and violet. Others have explored the number 4 (compass directions, Maxwell's equations, moons of Jupiter). You have focused on the number 3.
It's an intriguing pursuit, but I have little to add.
Wishing you the best,
Bob
The address for the full paper he co-authored is here: On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems. I fully admit that I glossed over the content with my "3s" bias. Reading it forwards, backwards or upside down, I will always be biased in my assessment. We all are in our own ways. Acknowledging this does not diminish our intent to be as objective as possible. Our biases make us selectively nitpick information to seek out some measure of confirmation for our own ideas, or we use our prejudices as a yardstick by which we want to assault someone else's views, depending on the type and quantity of axes we have to grind. While I agree with the authors on several points, I feel their findings warrant the inclusion of more information. However, I can not see what the authors of the paper see. I do not have their individual nor collective education and experiences. Yet, I see that they are not acknowledging that they are using multiple three-patterned assessments as pivotal explanations.
Is this a coincidence or merely how they were taught to write? Read the paper with a "threes" perspective and you may see what I acknowledge. And you will also question whether the idea of their being Two arrows of time is accurate or that we need to be looking for a third. By claiming a list of threes ideas is numerology, one need not read further than a handful of examples before offhandedly dismissing the overall representation. Alternatively, I wonder if a list of threes ideas being presented as an accountant's ledger would be a more viable, particularly if I say it is a list of enumerated ideas that need to be taken account of and requires a result. Unfortunately, there aren't many who have the ability to tabulate the list of examples and produce a useful formula for further application. We "threes" enthusiasts can not expect experts in different fields who have won multiple awards, received multiple grants, and attained respected social positions to be readily enthusiastic about an idea that has not as yet garnered much acknowledgment and thus acceptance, much less having reached the status of being recognized as a subject to be taught in a University when it is being dressed with the old garment of Numerology, that early Mathematician's had to fight long and hard over to get the garment removed from its shoulders, just as Astronomy had to make its way from being dubbed Astrology and Chemistry being called Alchemy. And while some may refer to Psychology as the study of socialized behavior of spiritualized superstition, I give the subject the benefit of a doubt and call it a practicing science and not an excursion into various human whimsicalities such as labeling Politics a Political Science instead of some other behaviorist category.
Simon Kelsey, a longtime threes enthusiast offered a rather excellent idea with respect to three types of Time's Arrow, in response to the suggested idea of two types offered by Dr. Hanzen in the foregoing video:
(3) arrows of time: The first for matter (nothing to something) and the second for life (matter to life) and the third for consciousness (life to consciousness).
All told in the present Threes discussion, let me take a different tactic in describing patterns-of-three, particularly in the present case of pursuing the idea of a point of origination for the topic of the "threes phenomena" due to the rather widespread appearance of "threes" patterns in multiple subjects; giving the impression of a repeating cognitive activity that many observers may automatically claim is due to:
- Coincidence, you see it because you look for it.
- Cultural standards of usage, such as for magic, superstition, gambling, clothing sizes, drink sizes, fast food combo meals, religion, numerology, speed/luminosity/heat settings, writing/speaking/reward structure, literature, exercise routines, three 8-hour day partitioning, etc...
- Nature; such as seen in the Fibonacci sequence: The Fibonacci sequence is the series of numbers where each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers. [1st plus the 2nd equals the 3rd value] For example, 0 + 1 = 1,+ 2 = 3, + 5 = 8, + 13 = 21 + 34 = 55 + 89 = 144, + 233 = 377 + 610 = 987, ...
- The Nature of numbers as an exercise of basic cognitive patterning; using the Persistence of Dichotomies as a point of initiation.
- The Nature of number usage in a given culture. (such as triple entry accounting, value segmentation such as [ones-tens-hundreds (comma)]...)
Yet, if you ask a theologian, you typically get a theologic response. Ask a philosopher, and you get a philosophic response. Ask a farmer and you get a reply relative to their experiences. In other words, what we see among so-called experts is a type of functional fixedness. They are not readily available to provide a multi-dimensionality of cognitive applicability. It's not that they're stupid or can't, they simply do not practice this model of thinking even when they consider themselves to be broad thinkers and open minded. The name of the game is not generality but specificity. While early hominids were generalists who survived to help produce the lineage of Homo, later civilizations of different Homo groups were forced to specialize, all leading to an eventual demise of the civilization which initially produced generations of generalists and then once again generations of specialists... again leading to an eventual demise of the civilization. In our present era, a new generation of generalists have appeared called the Homeless. They are very much scavengers like early hominids trying to eke out a living and adopt an omnivorous diet (with periods of forced fasting) and not simply be a meat or non-meat eater.
There is a need for a different approach in highlighting what appears to be a significant quality and quantity of a repeating cognitive structures that the Science, Philosophical, Education, and Mathematical communities are appreciably ignoring and selectively choosing to pick a desired content by placing it into a very narrow frame of referencing— in order to support older traditions of consideration such as those occurring in religion, artistic renditions of mythology, and confabulated literature, and the sometimes theatrically produced contrivances (now in use by advertisers). When we can see negative opinions about a "threes" idea (or any sustained collection of a number or otherwise) being established by the fields of Psychology and Mathematics, not to mention some cultural Anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and their pet frogs; it is necessary to formulate a strategy of "defensible assertion".
By so doing, we Threesologists will not only stand fast and hold the line, but initiate a concerted step forward against those who are guardians of maintaining a status quo of antiquated perceptions and intellectual deliberations. Such guardians routinely produce one of the voluminous discussions of previous decades and thus claim nothing is new, which keeps them from having to re-think their positions and keeps them from discovering errors in the thinking of those they have come to reverently side with. Indeed, I have been knocking on the doors of Science, Education, Philosophy, and Linguistics (not to mention mathematics)... and they all shut their curtains, douse the lights, and whisper among themselves as a type of collusion, in order to pretend they're not home. Well, this wolf isn't going away. However, one can not simply resort to the tactic that Martin Luther (supposedly) did by posting Ninety Five Thesis on the door of the All Saints' Church and other churches in Wittenberg, Germany, in accordance with the then University custom; an action which played a part in starting the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Nonetheless, a "threes" revolution is underway and has been for several billion years, if not since the inception of the Universe and reality as we know it.
So, hypothetically speaking, let's view Science, Philosophy, Linguistics and Education (though we might well consider adding several more practices), as types of religions which have adopted the attitude of removing the Monasterian hoods, eschewing the pious demeanor, and setting aside the symbolic regalia (though each may wear some manner of an adopted dress code such as donning a white smock); but still practice the ancient intellectual traditions of making an assertive and sustained inquiry into one or more of the many (presumed) naturally occurring vicissitudes of life which curious minds are inevitably drawn to investigate, depending on predispositions; be it the study of Biology, Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology, Pharmacology, Botany, Psychiatry, Animal Husbandry, Crop production, Physics, Astrobiology, Medicine, Mathematics, Magic, Mysticism, Witchcraft, Voodooism, Shamanism, Divination, Ouija board, Person-Place-Thing Hauntings, Paranormal, Higher Consciousness, Reincarnation, Karma, Wicca-ism, Cryptozoology, Codes, Warcraft, Diplomacy, Crystals (as healing-transformative tools), gaming, Hybridization (in technology, plants, animals, mythology, cartoonization, manufacturing)), etc...
It is a tradition of thinking and perceiving the world referenced by the notable Hippocrates, and Galen, Gregor Mendel, and multiple others: 34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians (compiled by The Doc)., and another list: List of Christians in science and technology. A larger list would contain professionals from around the world, whether or not they actively observed a religion or metaphysical philosophy.
Granted, as one commentator pointed out, the above selection are all members of the Pre-Darwin club, but Darwin himself was at the very least a theist. Due to the stranglehold religion has had on humanity, it is infused in all ideas, even those professing some anti-religion or anti-god view. And while we have many who have spoken of the Christian Trinity as having viability for discussion, most of the referencing apparently involves only a handful of comparisons with other subjects, because its adherents egotistically assert that there is no comparison. It is an arrogance we can see in Islam with respect to its notion of god, in Judaism with respect to its people, in Hinduism with respect to its selective choosing of minutia to advance one perspective over another within the same genre of multi-faiths; as well as other ideologies which relabel prejudice, discrimination and single-mindedness from a practiced stubborn streak of close mindedness. Aristotle on the other hand, (with respect to the Christian Trinity) tried to provide an expansion to this limitation, by adopting what has been called an Aristotelian Anthropology, though this term is a lot broader in scope than my application of it in describing efforts by Aristotle to find cognitive attributions of the Trinity in tripartite ideas outside the immediate monastic domain of religion. He wanted to show the Trinity being manifested in other ideological orientations such as we of today describe examples such as the body- mind- soul, heart- mind- soul, and father- mother- child, as but three examples. Therefore, let us assume the multitude of patterns-of-three are not only part of an expanded list of categories that could be added to the Aristotelian Anthropology concerning the Christian Trinity, Hindu Trimurti and the various ancient Egyptian triads; but all of the sciences as well.
While it can be argued that the Trinity is but one of hundreds of tripartite organizational themes, it can be seen as an "intellectual construct" which helps to coordinate diverse observations of "threeness", and is a phrase that is coined from a sentence found here: The Doctrine of the Trinity: Intellectual Construct or Ontological Reality? Reflections from the Philosophy of Science, by Alister E. McGrath. However, if we use the notion of the Trinity as the standard by which all patterns-of-three are to be measured, then the concept of the Trinity becomes most important instead of being just one three-patterned idea among hundreds of others, one or two of which might better serve as the proprietary standard of human conceptualization in this regard of enumerated labeling. If the concept of the Trinity's claim to fame is merely standardized by way of a human preoccupation (obsessive compulsiveness) concerning some supposed "god" entity, and this entity is but one of thousands of make-believe story characters humanity is known to tell and re-tell time and again, then the recurrence of threes needs to adopt a more realistic and factual representative model of basic conceptualization.
If we view the development and usage of the Trinity as an alternative type of psychological movement in contrast to the use of dichotomies, then we might well describe it as a type of cognitive "third force". Interestingly, a few centuries later, we see a similar cognitive orientation occurring in Psychology:
The third force movement in psychology was also derived from the traditions of the human science model of mental activity. The term third force is actually a general categorization for several orientations and emphases within psychology. If psychoanalysis is considered the “first force” and behaviorism the “second force” within twentieth-century psychology, then the “third force” may be any movements that are not psychoanalytic or behavioral (Rogers, 1963). Other labels describe various expressions of the third force movement: Existential psychology indicates the applications of existential philosophy to psychological issues. The term phenomenological psychology is sometimes used to express characteristic ways of studying psychological events without resorting to reductionism. Personalism in psychology considers the personal characteristics and value of human beings as unique, free, responsible, and relational, in contrast to various impersonal and deterministic perspectives. (The Third Force Movement)
Around 1962, before cognitive psychology rose in prominence, many psychologists complained that psychology was offering two alternatives, neither satisfactory. If you wanted to do therapy, you had to study Freud's eccentric theory (described in Chapters 11 and 13). If you wanted to do research, you had to endorse behaviorism and avoid talking about the mind altogether. Given these two alternatives, many psychologists hungered for a third alternative. Out of that concern was born the "third force" in psychology, humanistic psychology. (The Third Force)
CitationDeCarvalho, R. J. (1990). A history of the "third force" in psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(4), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/002216789003000403
AbstractNarrates the institutionalization of humanistic psychology (HP) and discusses the intellectual tenets that have made HP a distinct movement in American psychology. The founding of the Association for Humanistic Psychology and the Journal of Humanistic Psychology is described, and the humanistic movement is discussed in the context of the main psychological currents of the 1950s and 1960s. Focus of the discussion is limited to the early stage of the history of HP, which is viewed in the context of behaviorism, psychoanalysis, existentialism and humanism, and the characterization of human nature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
Indeed, Hitler's Third Reich was a type of Third Force. So is the attempted self-labeling of some in the LGBTQ+ community who view themselves as a Third Species. And if the reader should encounter and emphasized third position or activity in one or another subjects, they too can be added to the notion of a Third Force... as a recurring cognitive compartmentalization (a systematized synthesis) of disparate or collectivized elements... though not all examples of a Third Force achieve notoriety on a grand scale of widespread acknowledgement. An example is the list of pre-human creatures being used in the mid 20th century that were introduced by Ernst Meyer giving a lecture at a Conference at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 1950, and declared to be wrong... with the correct one consisting of only three, namely: Homo transvaalensis → Homo erectus → Homo sapiens. Meyer's idea lasted for 14 years until overthrown by three individuals: Louis Leakey, Philip Tobias, John Napier... who added Homo Habilis to the hominin record in 1964. (The Discovery and Initial Interpretation of 'Lucy' in Paleoanthropology with Ian Tattersall)
Discussions of the Trinity run far and wide. Even before there was the use of the word "Trinity", some philosophers are cited with having anticipated the three-part construct from a host of philosophical considerations, resulting in a type of E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one), so long as we don't forget to include the notion that in historical mathematical terms, the word "many" is used to describe very early counting schemes such as in the phrase "One- Two- Many". Everything beyond the "2" was considered Many. Hence, three number words was once the extent of a counter's vocabulary, and the phrase "One- Many" may have preceded it, though alternative words such as heap, mound, much, all, etc., could also be used in such a context, just as we say knife- fork- spoon. A knife clearly looks like the number one, and Etymologically speaking, the word Fork references a count of "2", and the spoon (to me) is clearly a utensil suggesting a quantity that can be described as "much, more, many, a lot". Nonetheless, in the Theological sense, the three of the Trinity do represent the One... a singular quantity with triple assets, much like a knife constructed with three commonly used implements for a time and place where having three implements was all that would be needed.
On the other hand, if we accept the idea that the Trinity or Trimurti, or some ancient triad in human, animal, symbolic or architectural form is the basic currency of mental functioning which defines an accepted rate of exchange for all the different types of coinages (different threes ideas from different cultures in different time periods); then an "Aristotelian Anthropology" applied to the Trinity can accumulate and collate a large, disparate assortment of "threes" and cast an ownership title thereof, onto any and all which can best serve the inclinations of a given clergy in a given time period.
The "three" as an expressed architectural form of cognitive activity that we find in literature and jokes, is readily evident in the story of the Three bricklayers:
The story of three bricklayers is a multi-faceted parable with many different variations, but is rooted in an authentic story. After the great fire of 1666 that leveled London, the world's most famous architect, Christopher Wren, was commissioned to rebuild St Paul's Cathedral.
One day in 1671, Christopher Wren observed three bricklayers on a scaffold, one crouched, one half-standing and one standing tall, working very hard and fast. To the first bricklayer, Christopher Wren asked the question, "What are you doing?" to which the bricklayer replied, "I'm a bricklayer. I'm working hard laying bricks to feed my family." The second bricklayer, responded, "I'm a builder. I'm building a wall." But the third brick layer, the most productive of the three and the future leader of the group, when asked the question, "What are you doing?" replied with a gleam in his eye, "I'm a cathedral builder. I'm building a great cathedral to The Almighty."
Online you will find many variations of this story, but each version tells of three people working on the same wall, doing the same work, but with totally different perspectives. From this story, many analogies and applications can be drawn. Some of these include the importance of:
Big Picture Thinking – Being able to see the end result and how your work contributes to that end.
Attitude – A positive attitude and pride in what you are doing will show up in your work and your motivation.
Connection to the Organization's Mission – Employees who are rightly connected to the organization's mission, vision, values, and goals are happier, more engaged, and more productive employees.
Another Architectural example, more prominent with threes is the Church of the Trinity in Waldassen, Germany:
each turret with 3 dormer windows;
3 rook with 3 openings in each;
3 windows & 3 doors in each part of the structure;
3 large & 3 small crosses;
3 altars & 3 staircases;
3 doorways & 3 columns;
3 lights & 3 niches;
3 bays & 3 windows in each bay;
3 statues of the Virgin Mary;
The designer was George Dientzhofer, the 3rd architect in his family;
The church took exactly 33 months, 333 weeks, & 33 days to build;
It cost 33,333 florins & 33 kreuzer.
From the perspective that the "3" is a basic cognitive template, all the "threes" ideas found in the following examples of subjects are thus supposed as expressions of the Trinity:
- A list of threes in Human anatomy, by Dr. McNulty and Associates. (Note: I had sent him a copy of my Threes poster shortly after it was printed.)
- Biology: (such as the Triplet Code in RNA/DNA; Three germ layers: Endoderm- Mesoderm- Ectoderm; three types of body plan symmetry: Assymetrical- Radial- Bilateral; three types of eating plan: Omnivore- Herbivore- Carnivore, etc.).
- Particle Physics: (three large sub-particles: Protons- Neutrons- Electrons; Three families; Atomic decay radiation: alpha, beta, and gamma; etc...).
- Stock Market: Bench Mark Indexes; (3 most common broad-based market indexes:
- The S&P 500 index represents the 500 or so leading U.S. large-cap companies.
- The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) represents 30 large-cap leading U.S. companies.
- The Nasdaq Composite index represents approximately 3,000 NASDAQ-listed stocks.
The situation with religions is that they are run like businesses and governments with spies who try to find out what secrets are being told by supposed competitors and rivals. If someone comes up with a good idea or has a good idea in the beginning, a religion will try to usurp the interest in order to promote what it believes to be a better, typically more complex idea, like those in the present computer age who compete for the public's attention by producing and promoting a better app (application to a given problem or situation). Such is the case for all religious and mythological triads, threesomes, Triunities, the Trimurti and the Christian Trinity. Nature worshipers in the deep past had a large following as attested to by the use of fertility rites, planting festivals, and named gods aligned with this or that pattern seen in Nature, be it an eclipse, weather patterns, star alignments, movement of animals, growing seasons, as well as the Moon and the Sun. Correlations with human behavior and bodily functions to events in Nature were signified as being preeminently important. No doubt the repeated observations of simple pairings of Natural events to human sensations created a science... of sorts, though it may have involved notions of spirituality and gods, if not demons as well. Such pairings took on a manifest ideology in the hands of some Chinese, from whom came the idea of the Yin and Yang, at first describing only a small list of a few opposites, that has since garnered more attention and been given multiple other contrasts in our present era. Like earlier notions of counting based on a one-to-one correspondence of pairs, the "2" was a big deal, though the enumeration may not have been acknowledged in the same terms we do today. Nonetheless, it had and held reverence from many.
In short, and more to the point, later religions confiscated ideas from earlier religions which were later described with the term of "paganism" by later researchers as a contrast to the views of those wanting their ideas to be viewed in a more favorable light by its practitioners. If peasants (or pagans, or whatever term of Redneck or Hillbilly was used in ancient times) did not readily comply with the ruling elite's belief in gods, goddesses, spirituality, etc., laws were put into effect which forced compliance, much in the manner that some families and communities do today to get the young to follow in the footsteps of belief of the older generations. In several cases we find that older ideas were confiscated and relabeled so that the ignorant country folk would more easily be persuaded to adopt the new system of beliefs. Such is the case for the Trinity, Trimurti and Egyptian Triads. The step-wise fashioning of older Nature ideas has since been lost to antiquity, but the final result has not been. The Egyptian Triads, Indian Trimurti, and Christian Trinity are the resulting affects of commercializing the previous "pagan" attentiveness given to the Sun's three phases subjected to the efforts of what amounts to be different advertisement schemes. While the underlying "three theme" ("threme") has been retained, multiple cultural embellishments coupled to philosophical twists and turns are part of the long process of concealing the origination of the "threme". However, the more intellectual traditions try to persist in the effort of concealment, the more clarity is revealed.
Let us take for example the "three persons" idea being promoted by some Christian thinkers. It is much like the stupidity of the American Supreme Court which went along with the Corporate argument of defining a business as a "person", thus submitting to accepting the nonsense of "personhood". While we all know this is ludicrous, it permitted those in the business to eschew personal responsibility when the company advanced damaging policies put into practice. Without facing personal liability for the company defined as a "person" whose policies they helped to create but can not be held responsible for... except in terms of gaining a portion of any and all rewards for good policies put into practice; we see this same sort of thinking being used by those arguing about the personalities of the three "persons" of a made-up entity called the Trinity. It is a corporate strategy of thinking that theologians have adopted and pursued as if they are engaged in an intellectually persuasive ideological consideration they want to reap whatever reward they can from the philosophical entity, but not be held personally responsible for any errors in judgment they make. The Trinity, the Trimurti, and the ancient Triads of Egypt as well as mythology, are like named corporations given a personhood. However, many intellectual trinities abound in different philosophical orientations and given the titles of laws, or observances, or pathways. The many three-patterned orientations found in Buddhism is a testament to this intellectual tradition which has been increasing over time. The "three" has been expanded into many vagaries of consideration. Not all statues become illustrate with three erect entities with different names. Instead of statues, we have written statutes, both of which refer to something put in place to stand and be commonly recognized, referenced and revered.
And though we of today can see the "3" as having its own qualitative and quantitative appeal, it is a transcendent position which is not easily acknowledged by the primitive mind, since there are fewer Natural "threes" events on the Macroscopic level that are visible. While we do have the "triads/Trinities" of:
- Stars- Moon- Sun
- Earth- Water- Air
- Hot- Warm- Cold
- Solids- Liquids- Gases
- Flying- Walking- Crawling
- Urine- Feces- Spit
- Trees- Bushes- Grass
- Birth- Life- Death
The Sun with its three phases (dawn- noon- dusk) appears to have been acknowledged as an impression inducing phenomenon, but not initially as 3 separate entities such as one might describe a set of triplets by individual names. While later religious ideologies did pay tribute by associating a particular god to each of the phases, they were routinely addressed in terms of an overlapping or integrative composite, that we can label as a 3-in-1 entity. Whether intuitive or not to the general mind of distant Nature worshipers, it can not be said, and the modern of of calling an ancient Nature worshiper as Sun worshiper, is most likely a contrivance of early scholarship based on misunderstanding, if not simply a copycat reference used by others. While the Sun loomed large in the cognitive landscape of ancient Nature worshipers, as did the Moon and stars, they were most likely not foremost in the early stages of Nature worship. There were far too many distractions being defined as signs and signals that they needed to attend to in order for their group to sustain itself as a viable and legitimate social gathering to support and protect. To do anything to anger Nature was a serious offense... perhaps quite similar to perceived indiscretions of street gang members, prison gangs, and others of this ilk.
Whereas we can see the eventual trend of counting proceeding beyond the "2" to "3" in ancient systems of enumeration, this does not actually tell us how long the human mind was progressing between the conceptual establishment and usage of each one. We don't know how long the gap... if any, there was between the numbers 1, then 2, then 3, though we do recognize there was a repetition established when the value of ten was reached. We see this in the "teen" numbers, of which there are seven by the way, to the the extent the "teen" is said to be reminiscent of the the "ten" spelled with two "es". Hence, while we say "teen" for 13, we do not say "eleventeen" nor "twelveteen", but we do see a recurrence in the values of multiple tens such as twenty, thirty, etc., which are to be read as "two tens" for twenty, "three tens for thirty", etc... In the case of the "teens" we have 3 plus ten, 4 plus ten, 5 plus ten, etc... Granted these ideas are attested to by numerous historians of number development, the point to be made is the fact that the human mind is not a stranger to embellishment.
Date of Origination: Aug. 9th, 2024... 4:30 AMInitial Posting: Oct. 17th, 2024... 11:03 AM