The amazing number three…
I was in Anthropology of Religion and I overheard that our society is indoctrinated with the understanding of threes. When we issue out ideas, if they fall in a series it is our Gaelic heritage which propels us to forumlate them in three. I had recognized this pattern, but had assumed it was an internal reaction to destroy false dichotomies. Instead of recognizing the duality of the world, we posit the triality (sp? hell is it even a word?) of the world. The third part is always a point in the center of the two opposing viewpoints.
Three main points in a paper?
Three musketeers? (hehe)
i’m getting silly now, but honestly evaluate your own listing abilities and decide whether or not your gaelic. The Celts believe three was a magic number, perhaps we do also.
December 7th, 2004 at 7:40 pm
This is a well-known aspect of Western culture. The triple latze (I am so misspelling that word–I haven’t studied drama and seen it written in like 11 years) is a traditional dramatic structure in which you have something happen twice, the same way, and again, the third time, in some slightly altered fashion that is either funny or makes a point. This is often used in humor, and you see it often in Shakespeare (even in sonnet structure–three stanzas/variations on a theme, ended by a moralistic or resolving couplet interpreting the repetition). Basically if something happens twice it could just be a fluke but having something happen three times confirms a pattern and calls our attention to what is happening. Making a point or doing something slightly absurd with the action or statement the third time uses this realization that happens with the second repetition to the author’s advantage… In fiction I often use the rule of three to create humor. Two normal things, one slightly normal but unexpected. Ha ha ha. Of course it goes further than that. I’m just talking about literature. But there’s the holy trinity, bad things happen in threes, etc.
December 7th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
[quote:5037657fb0=”sophia_de_philo”]This is a well-known aspect of Western culture. The triple latze (I am so misspelling that word–I haven’t studied drama and seen it written in like 11 years) is a traditional dramatic structure in which you have something happen twice, the same way, and again, the third time, in some slightly altered fashion that is either funny or makes a point. This is often used in humor, and you see it often in Shakespeare (even in sonnet structure–three stanzas/variations on a theme, ended by a moralistic or resolving couplet interpreting the repetition). Basically if something happens twice it could just be a fluke but having something happen three times confirms a pattern and calls our attention to what is happening. Making a point or doing something slightly absurd with the action or statement the third time uses this realization that happens with the second repetition to the author’s advantage… In fiction I often use the rule of three to create humor. Two normal things, one slightly normal but unexpected. Ha ha ha. Of course it goes further than that. I’m just talking about literature. But there’s the holy trinity, bad things happen in threes, etc.[/quote:5037657fb0] ok freak…. i didn’t neccessarily want to argue that some branch of religion was right, i was just noticing the genetic distribution of this cultural concept not neccessarily current in other cultures… i argue it is social understanding… not how the world actually is… in other words bad things don’t always happen in threes and the holy trinity is still a myth… not that that is bad or anything… just not true..
December 7th, 2004 at 8:04 pm
I was talking about people’s conception of the world, not the way it actually was. You know I don’t believe in the holy trinity or that bad things happen in threes. Semantics. I meant people BELIEVE in the holy trinity. They CONCEIVE of bad things as happening in threes. I don’t think it is happening that way either; I was talking about commonalities between human perception. I think it is because people like to see patterns. And the first that you can see a pattern is at three…
December 7th, 2004 at 8:25 pm
i actually like that idea… in order to know your position in the world you need three points, triangulation etc…. so patters are unrecognized without three objects… is a line a pattern? if so does it need at least three points or can a line be understood by two points? if a line is a pattern and it can be understood by two points then there can be pattern recognition with two objects…. Oh well.. i like the three object = pattern rule
December 7th, 2004 at 9:13 pm
a good friend of mine (ex-boyfriend as well 🙂 used to talk about this a lot, if I remember correctly… the threes thing. I might direct him here, just to see what he has to say about it. I like how you point out the three main points in a paper thing… it just doesn’t seem right if there’s four 🙂 Of course, if it’s multiples of three, it seems okay to me, when I really thing about it (like 6, 9) but I never get papers long enough for that. You take the coolest classes, D. I swear. I think I wanna go back to school to be a philosophy major. Screw PHDs in English.
December 8th, 2004 at 4:31 am
arglor, dahhhling–let’s see…………… in order to locate a line in three dimensional space you need three points, or else it is just a… well, a line… or a direction… 🙂 anyway, one repetition is a pattern, but the second repetition (third point) confirms the relationship (i.e., it’s not just an accident). so it’s a confirmed pattern with three. so…. i am about to call you babe. just got home from my last craft class. eating sushi. will call you as soon as i’m finished. mealymel–this is an anthropology of religion course, not philosophy, but d does seem to get to take really cool classes. i sat in on nietzsche and it seemed like it woulda been pretty interesting class to take. as for getting a PhD in english… christ. i almost did that. almost. at florida state. but it was going to be a creative PhD with a creative thesis. to go for a regular one, oh god… you are brave, madam, very brave. sincerely, a writer/slacker
December 9th, 2004 at 6:58 pm
heh. Yeah, brave is a good word for it. Stupid is another, or maybe something close to self-torture, or something along those lines. I’ve always contended that there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. And I’ve often used my own actions as examples. ask Wilbur… Trey. Whatever the fuck his name is :). We took our MA comps together, suffered through an Old English translation class together, and suffered through working in the Writing Center together. Hence, how I know the Bennett brothers. Mel