GENIUS FORUMS

cousinbasil wrote:

DHodges wrote:I am not a fan of religion, and would merely suggest that the teaching of the trinity is based on the idea: "If we can get them to believe that 1=3, we can get them to believe anything."

And you think this is being serious?

Maybe I am being too serious. I am asking why they picked 3 and not 2 or 4. Better yet, why did they not leave it at 1, since it is an offshoot of a monotheistic tradition?

three's a crowd?

Or maybe:

Brahmā = Curly
Vishnu = Larry
Śhiva = Moe

cousinbasil wrote: I am asking why they picked 3 and not 2 or 4. Better yet, why did they not leave it at 1, since it is an offshoot of a monotheistic tradition?

It's pretty obvious to me, since the most basic stuff in what we experience (apart, but not really, from A=A) comes in threes. Examples:

- past, present, future,
- thesis, antithesis, synthesis
- birth, stuff, death
- launch, arc, crash
- father, mother, child

Actually any process, like an arrow has a rear, shaft and point, or any direction has three aspects to it to our perception. As such any manifestation has three aspects.

So naturally the gods come in threefold too, since they have to express higher being or more abstract ideas. The obvious unity underlying any division is not as much monotheistic but also Hindu and ancient Egyptian philosophy. Of course one could also use fives or sevens, twelves or twenty-one. The idea is that once you start dividing (2) you always end up with something more (3), ad infinitum, ad nausea.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

cousinbasil wrote: I am asking why they picked 3 and not 2 or 4. Better yet, why did they not leave it at 1, since it is an offshoot of a monotheistic tradition?

It's pretty obvious to me, since the most basic stuff in what we experience (apart, but not really, from A=A) comes in threes. Examples:

- past, present, future,
- thesis, antithesis, synthesis
- birth, stuff, death
- launch, arc, crash
- father, mother, child

Actually any process, like an arrow has a rear, shaft and point, or any direction has three aspects to it to our perception. As such any manifestation has three aspects.

So naturally the gods come in threefold too, since they have to express higher being or more abstract ideas. The obvious unity underlying any division is not as much monotheistic but also Hindu and ancient Egyptian philosophy. Of course one could also use fives or sevens, twelves or twenty-one. The idea is that once you start dividing (2) you always end up with something more (3), ad infinitum, ad nausea.

Any manifestation has three aspects. We finally agree on something.

And yes, including A=A.

But one could not use fives or sevens, etc., if one wants to ascertain the minimum number of aspects for a manifestation to arise. Significant that it is not two from the standpoint of physics, QM in particular.

Well, I have 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 hands and 2 feet, and the Buddha probably had 2 of these things too, so consciousness must have 2 aspects!

My room has 4 corners, and so does my computer screen, and my copy of "Thus Spake Zarathustra", so consciousness must have 4 aspects!

Come on guys, surely it's not too much to expect a bit more profound thinking than this from this forum...

jupiviv wrote:Well, I have 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 hands and 2 feet, and the Buddha probably had 2 of these things too, so consciousness must have 2 aspects!

My room has 4 corners, and so does my computer screen, and my copy of "Thus Spake Zarathustra", so consciousness must have 4 aspects!

Come on guys, surely it's not too much to expect a bit more profound thinking than this from this forum...

Surely this forum deserves deeper thinking than you are displaying. For instance, why do you have two eyes and two ears? It is not random and it is not for redundancy and it is not for the simple sake of bilateral symmetry. It is so you can navigate in a three-dimensional world.

And not every object has four corners. You are being silly because it is easier than thinking.

cousinbasil wrote:Surely this forum deserves deeper thinking than you are displaying. For instance, why do you have two eyes and two ears? It is not random and it is not for redundancy and it is not for the simple sake of bilateral symmetry. It is so you can navigate in a three-dimensional world.

Well, that was my point. You aren't giving any reasons for connecting the number 3 with consciousness, perception, or whatever. You are simply picking out random facts which have 3 in them(like you did with 3 dimensions here) and using them as evidence to try to prove your point.

You are sounding like one of those mystical numerologists.

jupiviv wrote:You are sounding like one of those mystical numerologists.

I was wondering when you would get around to saying that.

I am merely counting. That's what science does, it attaches numbers to things so we can make abstract statements about them.

There is no such thing as "mystical thinking." It is an oxymoron.

cousinbasil wrote:I am merely counting.

...thanks for giving me a morning laugh. :-)

Science doesn't attach numbers to things without a reason. You have to define what you are talking about, and your definitions must remain the same for all cases of that thing. Only then can you reasonably apply those definitions to the empirical world(science). So far, you haven't properly defined some of the things you are talking about, and you haven't been consistent with your definitions - which is why this discussion is still going round in circles.

jupiviv wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:I am merely counting.

...thanks for giving me a morning laugh. :-)

Science doesn't attach numbers to things without a reason. You have to define what you are talking about, and your definitions must remain the same for all cases of that thing. Only then can you reasonably apply those definitions to the empirical world(science). So far, you haven't properly defined some of the things you are talking about, and you haven't been consistent with your definitions - which is why this discussion is still going round in circles.

Glad to be amusing.
Actually, I disagree a bit. Science often counts things before it has any reason to besides the fact that they have not heretofore been counted. Theories often follow the amassing of data as opposed to preceding it.