it all started with three - asking the question, which is the simplest number that is complex at the same time? one is simple ONLY. two is slightly more complex, yet very close to simple only. basically, two simples together. three adds another element - more complex, yet still rather simple. four? four is two times two - two slightly complex ones together. but it does not carry the peculiar complexity of three within it. OK, you can say, three plus one is four. but that does not add much to what three by itself is already. what about five then? OK, five is two plus three. is that not rather complex? yes it is, but it does not offer anything essentially NEW to what we already have. this is true if you go further down the line. it gets more complex and loses simplicity, without adding anything essentially new. if you want something very BASIC, yet complex, it seems that you are stopping at three. before three, too simple. after three, nothing new gets added, expect unnecessary complexity.
so three it is.
two is a very seductive number, because it seems complex, or clever, and yet it is more of an expanded simplicity (one plus one) rather than something that is truly complex (not so easy).
anyhow, these are numbers only. what is the broader, or deeper MEANING of one? of two? of three?
by way of analogies: one is a whole. one-ity. un-ity. all inclusive. no distinctions. a pool. a seed. a UNI-verse. how do I experience such unity as a living person? how do I become one? a seed? how does all integrate where distinctions fall away? I go inward. I go down. something like the peak of the sexual act. or something like being a baby. pure oneness. everything is me. me is everything. such unity also comes with darkness. in the dark there are no distinctions. and slowness - no better, stillness. a darkness, a silence, an eternal stillness. no time. no space. the beginning is the end. the end is the beginning. birth equals death.
and two? what happens with two? two comes after one. it is one plus one. two wholes? two universes? but that does not make sense. if one is ALL, there cannot be two “ALL’s”. so the closest way of having two one’s, is to split the whole. two is a splitter. two tries to be whole, but can only come close to this by breaking the original (true) whole in… two. and how do you keep these two from become one big whole again? they need to resist each other. they need to be DISTINCT from each other. they cannot be friends in any way, because that will create more one-ness than two-ness. to be truly two, these two need to be mutually distinct. in fact, there is only one solid way for them to remain this, and that is for them to be OPPOSITES. polar. negative and positive. female and male. dark and light. no grays. absolutely DISTINCT.
so what the hell is a third element gonna do with this? what is the meaning of THREE? what the hell indeed. first you had a perfect whole. then a perfect polarity. but three? can three things be polar to each other? no. poles are diametrically opPOsed. linear. this end and that end. but three? it’s all skew now! well, indeed. the third element introduces true complexity in its most basic form. it’s easy to go mystical about ONE. it is also rather easy to jump around the war-making of two. but when the waltz enters, mm, what is this? it does not want to show itself clearly. you keep looking at it, it keeps seeming rather simple, and yet it is not.
so in geometry you have a circle (one). circles can be big or large, but that is about it. then you have a square (the oppositional two). squares can be manipulated a bit more than circles, but those 90 degree angles remain. when it comes to the triangle, however, the angles can shift, the size, and therefore the shape to certain extent. the whole form becomes more wobbly (complex). but this: the most stable structures are built with triangles. not circles, not squares. but ok, let’s leave it at that.
there is thus a little storyline here: one, two, three. wholeness, splitness and what-is-this-ness.
on to character.
the character of each of these flows from their meaning. the character of one is inward, is slow, dream-like, sleep-like, is proceeding from the dark, from the beginnings of things, from the soils, the seeds, is generative, general, is like a child, is playful (things are not distinct), is creative, is spiritual, mystical, healing and universal. the character of two is indeed oppositional, is distinguishing itself from the rest, is looking upon (objective), is reflecting upon, is AWARE of all in its distinctiveness. the world is turned into THINGS and bodies and kept as such by drawing strict lines around them. everything is fighting everything else to stay atomically autonomous. even better if they can fly away from each other, GROW, compete, expand, explode, exhilarate. this is the world of the adolescent, arrogant, self-assuming, specializing, spatializing. oh and then comes number three and what the...! that third line of the triangle confuses the linearity of the square. it opens a PERSPECTIVE between the two polar positions. the blind black and white is now confused by a grey that is telling the two polarities that they actually have some things in common, without fusing them back into a black WHOLE. three brings RELATION. polars can do one thing very well: fight. but in a triangle, there is a mix-up between fighting and being one, bwteen war and peace. it is called relating. in short, things are not so simple anymore. this is the land of the mature, having been both the child and then the adolescent, maturity asks for something less easy, less seductive, less stark. it introduces a character that can never be quite defined, even as it is not fuzzy at all. it is more like a character that HAPpens. you cannot pinpoint it. you have to walk along with it to get to know it. to keep knowing it. in fact, this is more than knowing. it is relating. number three is the world of ongoing relationships.
so, INNER, OUTER, IN-BETWEEN. child, adolescent, adult. subjective, objective, relational. that’s the story.
------
three are a very few. if I need a classification system for a huge bulk of items or elements, I will have to throw many things into each of the three baskets, which is not very helpful.. so how to subdivide? the most logical would be to take each one and subdivide itself in three again. so you have nine - 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1 ,3.2, 3.3. better. you can go on and subdivide again - 27! but for most purposes, that would be too many.
so let's look at applying nine categories then, to sort and classify a given bunch of entities.
by the way, the primary THREE (1-2-3) can be applied to so many things, apart from numbers and geometry, for instance primary colours, primary feelings, and, yes, primary body parts (instinctive (the lower genital body), sensory (the head and mind), moveable (the heart, lungs and its extensions - arms and legs)) and so on.
[on a point of interest, there is looking at gender through this prism: the feminine principle, the masculine and neuter (just a warning as to not to over-simplify sexual identity: all men and women have both masculine and feminine traits, naturally with men, the masculine would dominate various degrees, and vice versa). But where to place them in the order of Subjective-Objective-Relational? In brief: the Subjective is the Negative Pole. The negative is the over-burdened (heavy, passive), while the positive is the under-burdened (light, active). The negative has gravity (situated and saturated). The positive has a lack of gravity, a certain emptiness, therefore flying to everywhere (linear, hungry). So it seems rather logical that the feminine belongs to the first and the masculine to the second - the Receiver and the Penetrator, the inward and the outward. The female womb, the egg and vagina, versus the male absence of an inner carraige and its penis, are the most obvious biological manifestations of these opposing principles. Together, Negative and Positive poles can generate electricity. Together, male and female can generate new life. Absolute equal in importance and yet also fundamentally different. Again, a man is also feminine, for he also has an inner life. And the woman also masculine. She also has an active exernal life. So, to be a man is not to be masculine, it is to balance the masculine and feminine within a male framework. And the same goes for the woman. Another very important implication of this analysis is this: the feminine is fundamental (comes first), the masculine is consequential (follows from the feminine, like two follows from one). So, mm.. yes, first there was Eve, then Adam (mythologically speaking), raising the very challenging question as to why we tend to tell the story (not only in the Biblical sense) the other way around?]
but ok, how to give character and meaning to those nine parts?
if one is inward, then subdividing it would result in three elements that are all inward - like this: 1.1 would be the inward looking inward. 1.2 would be the inward looking outward. and 1.3 would be the inward looking at relating - or better, the inward that is relating. similarly, number two, the outward, can be subdivided into the outward looking inward, the outward looking outward and the outward that is relating. and then the relating looking inward, looking outward, and finally, the relating that is relating. whooodeblygoogleduk.
yes, very abstract. but it’s not difficult to start filling it in with analogies to the point where it becomes an accessible storyline.
the inward
what is the inward looking inward? it can be translated (for instance) as me experiencing myself as a whole. me going inward and staying there. or me in the process of healing (going inward in order to become whole). it is me experiencing myself and the world in the most unified way possible. as in sexual ecstasy or a primal scream. looking at human society, there is a whole part of it that clusters around this 1.1. - the world of healing, of medicines, of psychology.. all geared towards restoring the whole. and the sexual “industry” of course, even though healing and the concrete oneness achieved in sex are supremely private (inner) matters and is best achieved privately.
when the inward starts looking outward (1.2), the world around it is recognized, but not quite as DISTINCT from the self. it is more like the self is projecting its own unity on the world. a baby does this supremely naturally, but there are social extensions of this, the most obvious of these being the arts. what is the arts, in essence, other than projecting oneself onto the world, resulting in the expression of one’s experience of the world, or in visions of imagined, or “better” or the worst of worlds. what is art other than Playing with reality? the arts does not bring the world to us in its breathtaking distinctiveness, no, it brings various guises of UNITY to the world, because it proceeds from within. the aesthetic is a subjective lining of things, turning them towards some sort of universal, showing the world in its ORIGINality.
and 1.3 then? how does the inward start to RELATE? it finds relation amongst people and things without leaving the inward stance. in other words, it finds the INNER connection between things, how all is related in the DARK, in their beginnings, at their core. so from pure subjectivity, the story moves to the projection of that onto the world, and then how all is connected - subjectively. the act of relating to all from within is the spiritual act. this is the true mystery of spirituality: the relation that goes on in the dark, where the eye cannot see. the lingering unity in all that outwardly seems to be completely disparate. this is not an abstract IDEA of how things are related, it is relation that springs like a prayer from a concrete inner core, from the here and now, a here and now that loses its time and its space. ineffable indeed, yet very real. just like spirit (breath) cannot be touched, and yet is concrete (air).
the outward
so here we enter the great split. childhood dissolves. enters the fast growing adolescent. but at first (2.1) it is the outward looking inward. or in other words, it is the upper body (senses, mind) looking at the WHOLE of the world out there. it is scanning the scene. like it is just escaped from the womb, and now, for the first time can SEE, standing on top of the mountain of reality.. oh waw! what a spectacle! I am not alone (ALL-ONE)! look at this whole in front of me! now socially, the discipline of looking at this whole in front (opposite) me, is called reflection. it has grown into the academic pursuit called philosophy. philosophy orders the world as distinct from me, to form a meaningful whole. it treats the world as a body. it gets to map this body, so it can go over into the next step, and that is to run all over it.
hence, 2.2. - the outward of the outward. this is now the outgoing awareness of all being distinct, running to MAKE it all truly distinct, by exploring all its myriad details and varieties, naming them, describing them (giving them lines, definitions, so they become NOT-ONE, but EVERY-THING). what a glorious and cold adventure is this not! (it is very cold when you move so fast, never trapped by anything warm like a unifying soul). this is the point (or million points) furtherest removed from total unity. it is the most sensorial and material. socially, this is the dimension of the scientist. the Knower of things - in their quantitative aspects, not their qualitative. in their lightness, not their heaviness. atomistic world. the world of complete DISINtegration.
gosh, who is gonna save us! enters 2.3. - how the outward starts to relate. the outward can only relate that which is outward. so from the philosopher, to the scientist, if you bring these two together, they give birth to the technologist. the MAKER of things. bringing things in relation to things. the philosopher could only map things into a whole. the scientist could only use this map to run all over and collect things. it is now up to the technologist to turn the world into something inhabitable. a mechanical order. getting the gears to grind. one thing hooked into another, becoming the objective relational tangle that is called technology. the adolescent is finding its identity, its place in the world. but only that. this is a great achievement - it has emerged from childhood, it is no more in the dark; it has navigated the world, conquered territory and built a home for itself; it can survive. but survival is not yet living..
the relational
and so the complication of complications enters. 3.1. relating to the inward. when the inward entered relating (1.3), unity was still the starting point, and the goal (spirituality). but now relating is the starting point. and it looks at unity IN the world of relating. just like the mountain-top adolescent were looking for unity in the outside world (2.1), the relating adult is now, firstly, trying to map the world of relations. because you see, once it has built its house, once it fought for its place in the world and found it, things settled in. what now? he or she now for the first time see its neighbour not as an adversary (no need for fighting anymore, survival is secured), but as a relation. it’s on to the finer details, the more complicated stuff of daily living. when the adolescent arrives at adulthood, it does so because he or she is RE-MINDed of its childhood, the days of its unity. the thing is, adolescence burns a hell of a lot of energy. it moves so fast. and that leads to tiredness. the only way to restore energy is to go into the dark again. yet it cannot go back being a child again, even if it tries. the big outward adventure has changed it forever. the womb is gone. yet it needs something of that old unity to make itself sustainable as an adult. and so, typically third-dimension, the complicated dance begins of RELATING one and two. and here, with the mapping of the whole of the web of relations that the adult finds itself in, we have given a name to this mapping. it is called morality. how do I behave within a web of relations? what are the overall guidelines in this complicated part of life? from morality, the study of ethics has sprung, and from that, the social institutions of law-making, jurisprudence and defending these laws: policing, and on the extreme periphery, a defense force. this is also the terrain - socially and physically (the heart) - where EMOTIons first spring forward in full force. the child’s emotions are completely self- (inner-) centered - the eMOVEments of drawing all and everyone into its (w)hole. and that of the adolescent whirl outwards, slashing a path open for itself. in either of these, the motions of emotions have but half strengths. it is only from the heart-centre that the dynamo of feelings can run full diameter. and in 3.1, it does so inwardly. it is the domain of the first true tears, the first felt sadness of being someone, yet someone vulnerable in this world. building a home is one thing, but finding yourself SHARING a limited space with others is another thing. it is the ancient cell realizing it has to start working together and combining with other cells in order to survive. it is the profound trauma of hitting one’s limits. it is the birth of ubuntu.
but being a good neighbour does not bring food on the table. or new materials to maintain the house. the world of relating is now moving outward (3.2) to find relation in the outward, objective world. it is about relating THINGS within the web of relations. it is about carrying water to drink, not only for yourself, as the whole village needs to drink. how do we organize (relate) this? who is doing the carrying? how long will the river keep flowing? how much can we consume today, tomorrow, in a decade? enter the domain of the economist, the dealer, the distributor. economy is not about accumulation or competition. economy is about RELATING goods and services. it’s about getting them into a flow that can sustain the community. it is not about money, just as philosophy is not about language. these are only arbitrary means to facilitate the main business at hand: RELATING materiality.
it is important to retain the perspective of the WHOLE story up to this point. each episode, from 1.1 to 3.2, where we are now, forms a flow of natural consequence. in broad terms, you cannot RELATE before you did not have unity and then diversity. you cannot go in-between things, if you have not gone in and then out first. and - here is a big crux - you cannot go out first, before you have not gone in. the subjective always comes naturally first, just like a tree always proceeds from being a seed first. first the darkness, then the light. first the slowness, then the speed. first the healing, then the fighting. first the child (PLAY), then the adolescent (GROW). and so, when it comes to the economist, look how much is needed BEFORE you can start economizing: you need to be a helpless, but unified, baby first. then you need to play and create, then you need to find spiritual connection with the world. then you need to properly reflect and map the outside world, then go and explore it in all its crazy details, then only can you start making things to survive with. then you first need to map the world of relations, become an ethical being and ONLY THEN can you start distributing goods within the web of relations - relations between humans but also within all of life and the environment. because reality itself is now become one universe of relationships. this is the NATURE of a basic complicated way of looking at all of reality. not just as a whole, not just as material distinctivenss, but as a living web of relationships, where nothing is ever finally outlined, and yet at the same time, also never just formless and arbitrary. in short, adulthood does not come cheap. and within a society, it is not only the order of development that is important, but also how all these 9 elements keep informing and sustaining each other.
put in concrete terms, the economist, the business person, in order to do his or her work properly, needs to rely on the insights and practice of the healers, the visions of the arts, the facilitation of the connecting spirituals, the mental maps and wisdom of the philosophers, the hard work of the scientist-collectors, the ingenuity of the technologists, the crucial moral frames of the ethicists and then on its own advanced capabilities of balancing this delicate yet robust flow of material goods and services. whenever any of these elements are missing or being weakened, the whole edifice of life is effected and might not live its full potential. and
yet, this is not the full story yet. there is 3.3 still. the mind-boggling relating of the relating. how do you relate the world of relationships? why do you need to do that? is the village not already at peace with itself and well-fed? is adulthood not complete once the inner life and outer life is well taken care of? what is this 3.3 then? does it not cancel itself out? these questions are asked by a mind that seeks simplification, that had enough of complicating things. I mean, well-working morals and a true economy (being economic, not cancerous) are pretty demanding acts in itself - give us a break! why adding “the complication of the complicated” on top of it? and yet, as we have seen, each time the splitting power of two hits limits. oppositional energies do not last. fights bring fatigue. self-assertion brings loneliness. and a missing middle brings depression. a village well-fed can have all the richness in the world, but something will be missing. what something? well, I cannot quite say exactly what. that’s the whole thing. why not die at the end of adolescence? why not be a hero? why not fly towards the sun until you burn away completely? why not grow until you fall over and crash? why not keep it simple and pure - you are wrong and I am right for evermore, until one of us kills the other? there is no simple answer to this. my god, that is again the point. entering adulthood from such adolescent bravery is not a pure logical choice. it is not even a seductive choice. the seduction lies on the side of simplicity. not on that of the complicating number three. oh, the number three! and also oh.. not. does not this sound like our relationship with.. politics?
ja hey, that is the one thing still missing in this story. politics and politicians. what about this: politics is that thing we are seduced to think we do not need, and yet we keep finding ourselves being embroiled in, even calling for it. the simple answer to this is that we are beings with hearts. not just genitals and minds. we are, so to say, three dimensional beings. ok, there are ways NOT to accept this, but I am accepting it. and as I am doing it, I must admit that all of reality is three dimensional. nothing very different about us humans. so being three-dimensional, we could arrive at being moral and well-fed, and still missing something. in fact, chances are we will not arrive at being moral and well fed at all without that final category, the one of relating all relations. and that is called leadership.
now, “lead” is not a very apt word. it feels too much like walking in front and the rest just follows. by lack of another word, I will try to redefine leadership is a kind of heart-pump. how does the heart lead? not like the mind, coming from top down. no, it’s there, there at the middle of things. it does not only pump material stuff (blood), it also FEELS the whole, and in that way, directs all its actions and decisions. again, this directing is not about pointing this or that way, it is about the ability to sense all the relating parts as they operate together in ways not one of those parts can do by themselves. it is communicating. it is creating comunity. it is not the origin of things (one), nor is it the control of things (two), it is the dynamic core of things (three) which treads this complicated but simple path of relating earth and heaven, the fast and the slow, the concrete and the abstract with each other. it is at once very humble and very powerful. and it is not either of these. it is pretty… complicated. yet simple. it is what you can never satisfactorily describe.
the best way to understand the character of politics is through stories. because relating the world of relationships equals a story - immediately. politics (of the individual, the family, the village, the country, the globe, the planet) is one very particular thing and yet it is all things at the same time too. it is this one thing that ensures that all these nine categories actually coordinate and work together. it is the flow of the flow. it is that thing, at the end of the narrative, that gives us happiness. not the “they all lived happily ever after” happiness, but the happiness of the fullest of meaningfulness and the sense of the whole as more than the sum of its parts. it is the heart that keeps beating after the mind has died and the seeds lying fallow. it is our final sense that we are alive, that we ACT-ually ARE. never fixated. always unfolding, and yet also, marking a certain fullness. yes, after 3.3, there is no more. this is the end.
------------------------------------
To summarize
it is also helpful
to draw this graphically. if one is low, two is high and three in the middle
(like the heart is in
the middle of the gut and head) and it follows that one comes first, then
two, then three, a simple graphic
can be drawn like this:
subdivided into 9, it looks like this:
from here on, the field is open to make more specific applications or analyses. I will only apply it to one practical instance here, as an example. it is the instance of the flow of a typical HA! performance.
looking at the graphic outlay, some things become clear: