~ 39 ~
~ 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 actually started this page prior to finishing the previous one. In fact, the opening comments meant for here are placed there, though I jotted attendant views onto a paper napkin as a reminder... which I did not need since the idea has been with me since the day before yesterday as I lay awake in bed. It all started with a discussion of how to interlink several solar panels... whether in series or parallel, since I am adding a second solar panel to the roof of the RV I am traveling around in and prefer them as the power source (to charge two 6-volt golf cart batteries) which is much quieter and cheaper than running a generator.
Unlike small dry cell batteries that are typically placed in series in order to increase voltage, the way to increase amperage from solar panels is to connect them in series. While joking with a friend whose property I stay on for the winter time because of the warmer weather, I was joking with him during a discussion about the way in which solar panels are supposed to be connected together. While some readers might not approve of my type of jocularity using intermittent suggestions which contradicted his views, they led me to consider other instances of parallelism and serialization, one of which might well be interpreted by viewing the three types of charge controllers used in conjunction with batteries and solar panels.
Let me digress a moment as I return to writing this page the next morning (17th), after writing the foregoing two reviews prior to going to bed.
In speaking of the foregoing examples of dichotomization and my intent to pose the question for a third appraisal, the following excerpt is culled from a page recently written and has had the following commentary added to it this AM before renewing the above thoughts. Please take into consideration that the following was taken out of context and may appear to be unrelated to the present discussion, but actually is a continuation of the idea involving dichotomization- embellished dichotomization- trichotomization... or at least an attempt to reach an actual level of trichotomization by way of first acknowledging its absence, its caricature, and imagining what it might look like once it is realized.
...The foregoing represents a system of purported Justice involved with people that like to waste money that isn't their own (like children playing a monopoly game who are given a certain monetary "allowance" to participate, but that this idea of an "allowance" is not permitted in the sense of a socially practiced guaranteed income provision which would allow more members of the public participate in the day-to-day "game"). Every single National and the International monetary system does work, but is a far cry from what is needed to produce a global equity amongst all. Yet, this is not the rule-of-thumb that the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is actually working with, though its philosophy says otherwise. It wants to promote a goodwill of interactive monetary stability by using a system of commercialized philosophy which undermines its efforts and yet its members are oblivious to this rationale because they persist in using an old-school formula of binary (buy/sell, consumer/producer, double-entry accounting) economics, by efforts to pursue a higher form of economic calculus by the introduction of what is thought to be a superior formula of accountability called triple or quadruple accounting that are, at present, little more that embellished dichotomies, despite the good intentions. In other words, there is no actual "third" level of consciousness being reached or achieved. Present efforts are like an ant caught in an ant-lion burrow which symbolically represent the half-life of an hourglass that is running out of time for the existence of humanity.
America's Quid Pro Quo Hypocrisy
This idea is just another analogy to the ongoing presence of dichotomies being subjected to different formulas of an attempted progression that we might well label as third way, though some would attempt a numerical value higher than a "three", no doubt part of the egoism that humans frequently engage in, as exemplified by those offering the idea of a triple accounting method and then those offering a quadruple accounting method... that may or may not be followed by someone offering a five, or six, or some variation of a "many" accounting system, as if to suggest the ultimate formula and hence, the superiority of their assumed thinking processes. Though I had touched upon triple and quadruple accounting ideas back on pg.24 in this series with respect to the 2-3-4 triple pattern, its re-introduction as an analogy does not detract from the initial discussion involve parallelism and serialism.
Since ideas can be viewed geometrically in terms of linear representations, two lines set next to each other (like railroad tracks) can be called a parallel arrangement, while two lines set end to end (like flashlight batteries) can be called a serial or series arrangement. Then again, with respect to a series, some alternate means such as designation a positive and negative end needs to accompany the illustration as a means of distinguishing one end from another. Parallel forms need only mimic residual (simple, basic) impressions and do not need to be identical or mirror images of one another. However, if we were to focus on distinguishing characteristics such as sound, color, smell, height, weight, etc., the notion of "series" might be invoked, such as a series of soldiers standing in a parallel formation. In any respect, none of these examples promote the notion of a third entity or realization such as some try to conceive up by introducing the notion of amalgamation, blending, symbiosis, and various other "combinatory" labels... if I may be permitted to use a word from mathematics which, like most subject fields, produces and promotes its own vernacular so as to give the impression of having achieved a division (and thus distinction or individualism) from other intellectual pursuits. In other words, to make a given subject more special, more specialized, and therefore create a distinction so that some type of lesser/greater serialization can take place by way of assumption.
Indeed, when speaking of lines and looking at the symbols used to describe the polarized view of positive and negative, the geometric forms of a single and double (or crossed) lines are used, not to mention the old "X" of multiplication and the one line "guarded" by two dots to indicate division, though with the advent of calculators we see the (respective) usage of an asterisk and diagonal line. In other words, there is no actual "three" or four different symbols being used, though one might conjecture that the substitute symbols are a third alternative. However, we can detect the usage of one, two, and three arrangements:
Do these simple geometric forms illustrate basic cognitive patterns or are they a type of makeup to embellish or camouflage, or conceal?
In biology there are the notions of parallel evolution, to which one might also ascribe the notion of serial evolution to go along with the notion of divergent/convergent evolution; supplying us with three common orientations of polarity which might be noted with other terminology such as mosacism, mutation, multiplicity, etc., and can be seen in the directions of moving game pieces when playing checkers or chess, though such actions can be seen in the "movements" of music and literature as well as military and sports tactics... not to mention the Fibonacci "series" which has its own integrated parallelism, routinely seen by those whose minds permit such a vision to be incorporated into their world view and not be given to thinking in negative reflective terms because they have the ability to exercise a different vision than others.
- parallel/serial
- divergent/convergent
- continuous/episodic
"Punctuated" evolution or equilibrium implies the requisite considerations of what punctuation? Events or non-events which portray some image of a period, question mark, exclamation point, colon, semi-colon, comma, etc? And what of the "space" between the letters and words and paragraphs? What does the space imply, particularly when we assign it to being a description of human cognition? Is it like the spacing between babbled expressions used by infants? Does the brain of humans require such spacing? Does it require punctuation? Does it require a symbolic go-between of which our symbols, signs and numbers intimate or indicate to us that some sort of activity (electrical or otherwise) is taking place in the brain?
The point being is that the idea of horizontal, diagonal and vertical movement can be recognized, within which occurs various circular, triangular, square and other geometrically laid out functionalities, at least from a human perspective.
However, philosophically speaking, we come face to face with a conundrum. With respect to the usage of two rail lines describing a parallelism, the existence of a "third rail" that is positively charged presents us with the situation in which a two-dimensional (flat) portrayal of a presumed parallelism is actually a paralleled serialism, such as one might describe with a triangle. Yet let us not lose sight of the fact that when describing railroad tracks involving a "third rail", we are illustrating representations focused on the differences between the usage of Alternating and Direct Current as a means to propel trains, instead of self-powered systems such as steam or diesel engines. Hence, we once again fall into a dichotomous discussion which can get buried by conversations that create intellectual embellishments which can give the impression that the discussion is "more than" a dichotomy by having a "third rail" or a third line overhead, or three-phase electric service. In other words, the underlying usage of a dichotomy becomes over-shadowed by the introduction of a third element, but that the original dichotomy is the foremost character in the formula, around which all other ideas are revolving.
Electric-traction systems can be broadly divided into those using alternating current and those using direct current. With direct current, the most popular line voltages for overhead wire supply systems have been 1,500 and 3,000. Third-rail systems are predominantly in the 600–750-volt range. The disadvantages of direct current are that expensive substations are required at frequent intervals and the overhead wire or third rail must be relatively large and heavy. The low-voltage, series-wound, direct-current motor is well suited to railroad traction, being simple to construct and easy to control. Until the late 20th century it was universally employed in electric and diesel-electric traction units.
The potential advantages of using alternating instead of direct current prompted early experiments and applications of this system. With alternating current, especially with relatively high overhead-wire voltages (10,000 volts or above), fewer substations are required, and the lighter overhead current supply wire that can be used correspondingly reduces the weight of structures needed to support it, to the further benefit of capital costs of electrification. In the early decades of high-voltage alternating current electrification, available alternating-current motors were not suitable for operation with alternating current of the standard commercial or industrial frequencies (50 hertz [cycles per second] in Europe; 60 hertz in the United States and parts of Japan). It was necessary to use a lower frequency (16 2/3 hertz is common in Europe; 25 hertz in the United States); this in turn required either special railroad power plants to generate alternating current at the required frequency or frequency-conversion equipment to change the available commercial frequency into the railroad frequency.
"locomotive." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
In speaking of parallelism connected with any and all dichotomization, we might turn to the observation of the bipedal gait, from which one might then diverge for a comparison with other types of gaits such as birds and insects, not to mention the "gait" of someone on a two-wheeled bicycle. Indeed, using the word "gait" applied to Alternating and Direct current, not to mention positive and negative references, including the notion that the three-patterned ensemble of Proton-Neutron-Electron can be referenced as a "third rail" system (metaphorically speaking in terms of a broad philosophical sojourn), it is of some imagined interest to think of the Alternating and Direct Currents as types of footprints put into (primitive) usage by humans, just as one might think the idea for constructing an arrow and spearhead may have either had an influence from seeing a dinosaur track or the self-absorption of humans with their genitals, specifically the penis which roughly corresponds to an arrow or spear shape. Then again, what are they the footprints of? No less, let us imagine that the three large particles of atomic physics are footprints we make crude emblematic usage of. What then of the creature that made or still makes them? And I am not trying to evoke a religious discussion involving some purported god-like figure. Gaits nevertheless leave footprints... whether we readily acknowledge and make use of them or not. Just like the strides of human thoughts, they too can leave footprints according to the type(s) of gait patterns... and this does not preclude altering the word "gait" to "gate" in opening one way, two ways, not opening at all, or revolving. Such alternatives must come to mind when discussing patterns of thinking, though too many researchers get bogged down by content or context or correlation.
For example, those thinking in terms of wave and particle for atoms do not necessarily use the language of "footprints" nor make a parallel connection with the idea of gaitedness nor stride, though measurements are taken in terms of distance, occurrence and accountability of equilibrium and interaction. Similarly, we do not customarily think of a parallel set of railroad tracks or roadway as a footprint of human thinking and that the parallelism is a type of brain activity stride called a dichotomy. No less, all the numerical patterns being used are footprints that may suggest parallelism, or serialism, depending on one's vantage point. For example, does the ABC sequence portray a parallelism or serialization? Is it another type of "being both" like the arrangement we cast for numbers in counting 1,2,3...? Is the notion of a physics bound "wavicle" a footprint of a primitive mental gait and stance? And what sort of gait does humanity have? Is it a serialized monality described as a parallelized duality but portrayed as a supposed third entity trichotomy? Or is the assumed parallelism a one-way street flipped about imaginatively because our type of human eyesight sees the world in an upside down view, thus creating the impression of a two-way street that is used by some (such as those wielding the dichotomous yin/yang ideology as a weapon, whip, wishing well and water or wind wheel), to control others and force them to defer to their dichotomous reality though some choose to escape by creating a third option found in different forms and formulas with respect to the subject in use?
Do we describe the following bird stances as representing the patterns "two by two", "three-to-one", and "two as four" bird foot placements?
- Anisodactyl: three toes in front (2, 3, 4), and one in back (1); in nearly all songbirds and most other perching birds.
- Zygodactyl: two toes in front (2, 3) and two in back (1, 4) – the outermost front toe (4) is reversed. The zygodactyl arrangement is a case of convergence, because it evolved in birds in different ways nine times.
The Zygodactyl arrangement occurs in many perching birds – most woodpeckers and their allies, ospreys, owls, cuckoos, most parrots, mousebirds, some swifts and cuckoo rollers. Woodpeckers, when climbing, can rotate the outer rear digit (4) to the side in an ectropodactyl arrangement. Black-backed woodpeckers, Eurasian three-toed woodpeckers and American three-toed woodpeckers have three toes – the inner rear (1) is missing and the outer rear (4) points always backward and never rotates. Owls, ospreys and turacos can rotate the outer toe (4) back and forth.
Parrots can be distinguished from other birds by the structure of the feet and bill. Most birds have the four toes arranged with three directed forward—the inner (II), middle (III), and outer (IV)—and one backward, the hallux (I). This condition, called anisodactyl, literally means"“without equal toes," referring to the unequal arrangement. Parrots have two toes (the inner and middle) directed forward and two directed backward; this arrangement is called zygodactyl, which literally means "yoke-toed" and refers to the occurrence of toes in pairs. Zygodactyly also occurs in woodpeckers and their allies (Piciformes), cuckoos (Cuculiformes), and some other birds. The proximal (upper) bone of a bird's foot, the tarsometatarsus (commonly considered the lower leg), lies between the elevated heel joint and the toes. In parrots it is short and stout, and at least one toe is always longer. It is the characteristic short, thick tarsometatarsus—or tarsus, as the entire region is called—and the zygodactylous long, strong toes that enable parrots to climb and manipulate objects so ably. The entire foot is encased in tough skin covered with small scales. ("psittaciform." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.)
- Heterodactyl: two toes in front (3, 4) and two in back (2, 1) – the inner front toe (2) is reversed; heterodactyl arrangement only exists in trogons.
- Syndactyl: three toes in front (2, 3, 4), one in back (1); the outer and middle (3,4) are joined for much of their length. Common in Coraciiformes, including kingfishers and hornbills.
- Pamprodactyl: two inner toes in front (2, 3), the two outer (1, 4) can rotate freely forward and backward. In mousebirds and some swifts. Some swifts move all four digits forward to use them as hooks to hang.
The most common arrangement is the anisodactyl foot, and second among perching birds is the zygodactyl arrangement.
Bird feet and legs
We can also dive deeper into biology and look at basic movements such as atomic, chemical and illustratively, flagellar arrangements that one might imaginatively view as oars or a gyrostatic mechanism involved in the process of movement... with "movement" being defined in the present discussion as a gait or stance or footprint that sways back and forth or side to side or up and down in a wavy medium (as is suggested by the interpretation that atoms give the impression of being a wave and particle):
That which we humans describe as bilateralism or mirror-imagery as one of the three basic types of body plans that can be aligned to the three commonly referenced symmetry forms, is problematic... not only because we can make an analogy with serialization/parallelism and Alternating Current/Direct Current, but because that to which we label as a "Bi" or in other circumstances a "Di", could well be construed as embellished mono-alities... or an attempt by humanity to go beyond single-thinking (thinking in terms of one and one and one... etc.,) by way of doubling, which can be interpreted to be embellished by the addition of a third monality. In other words, we are merely engaging in a stuttering effect, a mimicry, a repletion of a singularity that has been "commercialized" (socialized) into representing an inclination of that which has been described as the Ego. Many of the ones, two, threes, etc., patterns give me the impression of being different forms and styles of makeup used as dress rehearsals in the public sphere of usage. While some become fads, others become set to everyday uses and still others are specialized by those practicing a given subject's materials.
Although we see and say "three", is the three being used as a type of makeup to conceal or embellish? Likewise, which enumerated or "geometricized" (geometrically illustrated) patterns that we claim are real and are representative of truth, are actually imprecise impressions that others simply go along with as part of being involved with a given cultural orientation? For example, while the US government is supposedly formulated on the purported separation of powers philosophy by having three branches (Executive- Legislative- Judicial) which are thought to be incorruptible by one another; actually often interact as if they are a single entity, with the public very much ostracized from the making of policies and laws. In effect, the three branches actually effect more of a Paper- Scissors- Rock betting scheme, which permits one or two from being supplanted by one, thus giving us a ration of 1-2-1, which is the ratio found amongst carbohydrates, which are composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in a (three-patterned) 1:2:1 ratio.
The 1:2:1 ratio is also found in genetics, along with another ""2-3-4" formula:
Expected genotype ratio
The expected genotype ratio when two heterozygotes are crossed is:
- 1 (homozygous dominant)
- 2 (heterozygous)
- 1 (homozygous recessive)
(When a phenotypic ratio of 2 : 1 is observed, there is probably a lethal allele.)
Mono-hybrid Cross Problem Set
Here is the 2-3-4 pattern embedded in other patterns (with the "9" perhaps viewed as a multiple 3):
Random union of gametes produces zygotes that develop into new individuals. Zygotic genotypes occur in characteristic ratios, according to the genotypes of the parents. For example, a cross between two heterozygotes (Aa x Aa) produces an expected genotypic ratio of 1:2:1 among AA, Aa, & aa genotypes
The genotypic ratios produce characteristic phenotypic ratios,according to the dominance relationships of the alleles involved. For example, if A is dominant to a, the cross between heterozygotes produces an expected phenotypic ratio of 3:1 among "A" and "a" phenotypes.
Alleles at separate loci are inherited independently [Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment]. This produces characteristic genotypic and phenotypic ratios. For example, in a dihybrid cross between two "double heterozygotes" ( AaBb x AaBb ), The genotypic ratios are 1 : 2 : 1 : 2 : 4 : 2 : 1 : 2 : 1, for the genotypes AABB AABb AAbb AaBB AaBb Aabb aaBB aaBb aabb, and the phenotypic ratios are 9 "AB" : 3 "Ab" : 3 "aB" : 1 "ab". (:Primer of Mendelian Genetics)
While one school of thought can be to accept all things bilateral as an expression of "two" and not as a one plus one, another school of thought might do just the opposite, while a third view could take on multiple, many or "any number of" alternative positions of perspective, mix or match as you will. Yet in accepting one or its polar image as a differentiated other and then as well claim an observation of the two as a third, is the whole of this three-pattern little more than an expression of an ongoing environmentally influence biological disposition that may not have any universality except for the confines of this planet within its solar system within its galaxy?
Origination date: Saturday, November 16th, 2019... 4:00 PM
Initial Posting: Tuesday, November 19th, 2019... 7:38 AM
Updated Posting: Friday, January 20th, 2023... 12:39 PM
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com