~ 20 ~
~ The Study of Threes ~
http://threesology.org
Researchers as of 8/29/2019
| Devil's Advocate Series: | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14A 14B |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22A 22B |
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 A | 30 B | 31 | 32 | 33a | 33b | 33c |
| 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 A | 41 B |
I can not begin to express the excitement which I am enveloped with by being able to pursue threes research. It provides me an opportunity to explore macroscopic, microscopic and "inter-scopic" venues of any subject I care to venture into, much like when I was a kid sitting in a library surrounded by multiple types and volumes of dictionaries and encyclopedias... as well as different textbooks. I will never forget that while in third grade I was transferred to a sixth grade class, only to get into trouble because I was frequently taking the teacher's texts to read. Hence, I had not to do but walk to the Columbus Metropolitan library on High Street and nearby geology and Natural History museums. Because elementary school rather bored me, I spent much of my time day-dreaming. It was a sojourn that caused me to get lost as the years confronted me with the social/academic expectations which I contumaciously rejected in order to follow my own gypsy-like itinerant wandering soul instead of following suit with conventional thoughts correlated into the requirements of applied academic orientations. I truly was exposed to a different world along the path I had discovered.
Needless to say, I did not follow those paths nor the established ideas (many of which are now recognized as being wrong and the textbooks have been revised). However, in not mimicking the values and views required of me to be accepted as having "normal" knowledge and the accepted common-sensical thinking processes, can make one appear rather odd to friends and family... though now in my present aging years my once strange ideas are perceptions and organizations of logic which make for being interpreted as creative ideas. And though this is a path where many a notable person of history has followed within the domain of their own perspective, it is a type of education that social standards leave to serendipity and do not take an active part in encouraging or providing a type of "guiding hand" parameter without acting as a big brother or sister that leashes them to some domestic servitude. Alas, though this bit of subjective ancient autobiographical history may be of interest to some readers, it is a point from which I need to diverge and speak of from a different examination of reflective objectiveness, though objectivity in the raw is often portrayed with a nemesis called subjectivity... but any attempted middle-ground is without a clear label though it might be termed an objective subjectivity or subjective objectivity... without a clear distinction to be fully agreed upon.
Very often, the words subjectivity and objectivity are linked with the notions of "realism" and "relativism" but should more rightly be subsumed under the heading of "rationalization" for a given time, place and disposition— whether the disposition is of an observer or that being observed. Because one's memory often fails in later years, recall of particular events become subjected to romanticized flavorings that at the time of occurrence and actual experience may more likely have been crude and ruffled. Nonetheless, if accepted in the frame of mind of being a story told like so many stories told that become transferred via the translations which occur between oral and written transcriptions, the generality of exposure can be interpreted as a continuation of the musefulness I explored as a child in my many meanderings. In other words, stories of old culled from bits and pieces of memory should not necessarily be taken verbatim. Embellishments as well as erasures do occur.
And though we are often confronted by explanations used as definitions which imply opposite views, attempted compromises do not always result in a complementary middle ground. Either being objective or subjective in the extreme can promote callousness of interpretation... even highly emotional insensitivity that can be misinterpreted as empathy and sympathy because it is biased towards one end or the other of such a proposed spectrum of consideration. Taking a middle ground is no guarantee that it does not also produce a callousness against the extremes, thus distancing opportunities for clarity that may only be possible, at times, from taking an extreme position from the perch of a holistic examination of the various colors, flavors and textures of duality, wherein may exist no actual third entity except for the position in which we contour our subjective judgments about an attempted objectivity.
Let us begin with some simple definitions:
- Pertaining to oneself.
- Pertaining to other than oneself.
Here are some elaborated definitions:
- Subjectivity can refer to: Consider those aspects of the world that are the way they are in virtue of how we think about them, or the way we feel about them, or how we view them. Those are the subjective aspects of the world. (Rutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- Objectivity can refer to: Objectivity is a theoretical perspective that is omniscient, neutral, and detached with respect to a certain attribute or set of attributes. The objective courtroom judge has no reason to favor the defendant or the plaintiff, and the objective journalist includes no judgmental inclination in reporting an event. (Brown University, Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology & the Ancient World)
There are of course larger philosophical examinations of the subjective/objective dichotomy. However, the point I want to bring up is that in terms of an assumed evolutionary development of the brain, one might expect to likewise see an evolution of thought beyond this (and other) dualities. Like the discussion on the previous (#19) page of this Devil's Advocate series where there exists a stubborn two-patterned orientation to view an animal cell as being best described as a "Bi-lipid" (Fluid Mosaic) Model to explain its functionality, the retention of multiple efforts to persist in discussing the topic of a subjective/objective dichotomy appears to be but another flavor of an expressed underlying mental framework that many humans have not progressed beyond.
The insistent usage of a pattern-of-two frame-work to describe functionality though there is an obvious three-patterned form-ality, represents not so much the material being studied, but the mental faculty of those attempting to provide an objective observation by recording their thoughts according to an unrecognized usage of a subjective two-patterned orientation. They can't help themselves and will only be able to offer a rationale within a dominant two-patterned mental framework. Any observable three-pattern may well become dismissed or altered to fit within their two-patterned scaffolding.
On page 10 in this series I presented a view of the brain in which the two hemispheres are described with assigned attributes that can be further aligned with numerical distinctions... though very often we find that the reptilian assignment of the lower brain processing is not always included in brain hemispheric discussions. However, specifically, the assigned attributes of the right hemisphere are dominantly expressed with patterns-of-two and the attributes of the left hemisphere (which evolved later), have a dominant organization using patterns-of-three. However, it is also recorded that when the right hemisphere is doing the interpretation of left hemisphere activities, these are interpreted in a pattern-of-two frame work and vice versa. Each of the hemispheres have their own world-view orientation and observe occurrences with their respective two-patterned or three-patterned lenses. The "two" and the "three" are the respective languages of expression... though this may not be the case for each and every observation. While observations may be variable, the means of expressing the observations may have a limited vocabulary centered on a two or three means of illustration. Analogously, it is like a person with a brain injury or "lazy tongue" (such as Dysarthria) or some other speech disorder like speech apraxia, stuttering.
Devil's Advocate page 10
The fact that The right brain hemisphere is dominant in human infants fully suggests that a dominant two-patterned world-view orientation can persist into adulthood because cultural socializations reek of infantile and childish traditions though current practices are defined as adult-appropriate exercises.
Then again, in this unrecognized two- versus- three tower of Babel scenario humanity is experiencing, the effects of either a faulty development of the brain (in evolutionary terms) or troubled expressiveness (due to genetics, education, socio-economics, diet, culture, gender orientation, etc...) is often times linked to cultural habits of expectation. The modes and manners of speech and language usage very often dictate the manner in which observations are not only undertaken, but how they are verbally and/or graphically illustrated. The usage of science, politics, business, religion, can add to the problems of perception and expression just as does the vernaculars of sports and entertainment... not to mention literature and the rules by which a given social environment may exercise. Yet, knowing all of this does not alter the situation. We are still confronted by various pugilistic forms of two-versus-three orientations found in art, science, religion, and all other human---in-vested ad-ventures. All the different perspectives of the subjective/objective duality (such as is found in sociology, psychology, philosophy), have not helped humanity breech the territorial boundary of the overall descriptiveness. It is a mere change in scenery... from one dress rehearsal to another with different personalities doing the same sorts of expressions.
Like Politicians, Sociologists, Psychologists, and various others who do not actually try to solve a problem because they prefer to apply methods of management in which they can play a central role in order to provide themselves with a livelihood, such is the case with many philosophical issues. Philosophers are not trying to solve considerations by stepping beyond them, they simply want to add their two... or three cents to the mix and be noted for their contribution— with distinction. They don't want there to be a final word or they may be left out in the cold from being able to participate in an intellectual board game. More often than not, resolvable issues are instigated into irresolutions by those who thrive on some measure of conflict so as to ensure their own (or another's) job security... or retain the mere position of being able to instigate some event from an overlooked placement. Trouble-makers abound. They are a species that anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists have not addressed extensively enough in order to pay witness to a potential viral disease that can be inflamed by one or another provocation.
The presence of the subjective/objective dichotomy and the multiple persistent dichotomies which still arise in psychology (thus detailing the failure of psychology to mature beyond a two-patterned mental orientation though the inadequacies of the persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavioral development is recognized); not to re-mention the numerous discussions of dichotomies in various flavors of philosophy... must be analyzed as if they were off-shoots of one or more underlying causes.
|
Taking stock of the different representations of two-patterned thinking humanity has created to address the many vagaries of its repetitive mental activity, let me suggest that the human mind may simply be exercising a type of mimicry it has learned from various underlying two-patterned scenarios occurring in biological substrates; that is if we wish to think that the influence of peripatetic bi-pedal exercises which give us mobility (walking, jogging running), is not enough to establish and reinforce a two-patterned mental rhythm that we unconsciously hum and come to reverberate with ideological forms of concatenation. As such, one or more biological constructs of a "two-pattern" may exert an influence at early impressionable stages of development, as one might suspect is the reason for the emergence of the three Germ layers themselves. Take for example the pairing of amino acids. While not a distinct dichotomy in terms of opposition, the presence of complementarity may nonetheless provide an etched two-pattern form in which oppositional occurrences may nonetheless gravitate towards, like a rift, valley or gorge that is amenable to the occasional flow of rain water or any synonymous metaphor of fluidic biological processes.
Whereas a pattern of three may be accessible in all developmental scenarios because of potential, the possibility for an increased development beyond a one, or a two or a three is vulnerable to distortion, obstruction, diversion, detour, blockage, and various digressions due to one or another environmental reasons. Take for example the recurrence of RNA's single-strandedness and DNA's double-strandedness. Why doesn't RNA evolve into a double-strandedness and DNA into a triple-strandedness if there was not something which forces them to repeat the same formula of conservation? Why do complex life forms retain the usage of developing from three Germ layers and not become more complex by evolving into the usage of more Germ layers? Indeed, why a mere 20 amino acids for the necessity of life and not one hundred or more... or just three? What is binding biological processes to persistent in using just a few patterns over and over again? Is it environmental? If so, what happens if the environment changes abruptly... in some "punctuated equilibrium" scenario? Is such a scenario predictable by coming to an understanding of that or those environmental pressures which promote a conservation of biology to use only a few small number patterns of form and function?
Whereas human ego is inclined to think in terms of unlimitedness, such as in the adopted idea of a creator-god, or in terms of multiplicity, diversity, and freedom... all of these are mere expressions of a limited imagination. Whereas humanity practiced an orientation of having believed in various multiplicity of gods, this multiplicity has been encased in the idea of a single omniscient god, like a collection of organelles inside a singular cell's frame. It;s various contents are thus subjected to a type of invagination... as is supposed to have occurred in the early stages of a cell's development billions of years ago, prior to the onset of cellular multiplication... first with an effect of mirror-imaging and then a process of developmental differentiation where mutations of the basic underlying schema can occur. Nonetheless, the invagination and differentiation both entail an adopted duplication which expresses polarization... just as is found in the larger geophysical processes of Earth... or at least we view such a polarization as occurring.
If the assumed occurrence of Earth's geophysical polarization has influenced the design of the dualities apparently occurring in cellular activity, and from this has originated the eventual psychological expressions of dichotomy, how is it we are to progress beyond this pattern-of-two if there is not a means to create an environmental influence of our biology to progress beyond it? In other words, does the polarization have an inherent pattern-of-three (or other patterns) which make it possible for a developmental scenario to influence human thinking to reach beyond the recurrence of dichotomization, yet present socializations are an anchor against such a development? And when I say socializations I mean dominant ones such as education, religion, business and political orientations, not to mention the many positioned opposites in sports (i.e. opponents) and entertainment (i.e. cops and robbers).
Humans appear to be unable to think beyond a dominant practice of simplistic dualistic terms, which likewise appear to be related to egotistical orientations of the self and non-self; and instead produce illusions as well as delusions of grandeur concealed by creating a circular formula of dichotomization which gives us the impression that we have progressed beyond a dichotomy into a third-positioned multiplicity... but have only created multiple forms of dichotomies which conceal a form of mental processing that has not evolved its basic architecture of an over-reliance on patterns-of-two. Thus we become confronted by a type of thinking that uses an embellished dichotomization placed into a third position of our thought organization and becomes labeled as a trichotomy.
Origination date: Tuesday, September 18th, 2019... 5:45 AM
Initial Posting: Friday, September 20th, 2019... 8:51 AM
Updated Posting:Tuesday, January 17th, 2023... 12:33 AM
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com