Looking out for number one (2)

Some time ago, I wrote about the number three. And I have mentioned the number two many times already, mostly in connection with opposites (see Venus and Mars), opposing pairs (see alliterating antonyms) and the dialectic method. But of all the numbers in the universe, none is as important as the number one.

It starts with a perfectly shaped letter, be it circular (the two-dimensional abstraction of the sphere, which the ancient Greeks considered the perfect shape) or ovoid (the egg, the beginning of life). It sounds round, and is homonymous to "won"; it calls up simplicity, wholeness, unity ... you find it in all kinds of expressions, like "the one and only" (a bit strange, if you think about it, "only" being a contraction of one + like), "I, for one", "one in a million", etc. etc. (see als http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/a-23-2006-06-14-voa2-83129842/126143.html for more).

But one is also the loneliest number.
Here is Aimee Mann's version of Harry Nilsson's song "One"

which, much earlier, was also a hit for Three Dog Night:

P.S. I had to rename this entry, because I had already used the same title for something completely different.

And then there were three ...

I think it is safe to say that humans really like the number three. It comes back again and again, in science,  relgion, literature and art. Our predilection for (or even obsession with) certain numbers is easily explanable: we have a decimal numeric system because we have ten fingers, the number two is important to us because our bodies are bilaterally symmetrical and because there are two sexes (which is presumably somehow linked to the fact that we tend to think in terms of opposites such as yin and yang, right and wrong).

But what about the number three? Could it be a reflection of the fact that each human child is the product of a mother and father (which, I can't help thinking, is very similar to Hegel's creation of three-ness from two-ness: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis). Or is it perhaps more closely linked to the fact that space consists of three dimensions? Or both the same time?

Whatever the case, it is clear that I also suffer from numberitis, because while writing this entry I realised that there are three types of threes (or triads, or trios).

1

One type of trio consists of elements that are different but of comparable value, such as the Roman Catholic virtues Faith, Hope, and Charity, the three sources of power: violence, wealth, and information (Alvin Toffler), the three spatial dimensions, triptychs, the three witches in William Shakespeare's Macbeth, the three musketeers, the three stooges, the three rings for the elven kings (The Lord of the Rings), the rock-paper-scissors game, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly etc.

2

The second type consists of similar elements that succeed either other in a chronological order, such as the first, second and thirds acts of plays, most trilogies, the three stages of society (the agrarian, industrial and the post-industrial (again Toffler)), the 1-2-3's of so many self-help guides, and the fact that in many fairy tales, the hero has to try three times before succeeding (a pattern which is repeated in many jokes).

3

In the third type, there are differences in aspect, degree, or quality, such as Heaven, Hell and Purgatory, degrees of comparison (good - better - best, or, in software evaluation terms, must have - should have - nice to have), and protons, neutrons, and electrons. This category includes The Three Bears and The Three Little Pigs – you might think they are equal, but the main point of the story is that they are not.

The title of this entry, in case you were wondering, comes from a Genesis album - their first album as a trio.
(And the thing that prompted me to write is was a recent comment quoting Eleanor Roosevelt.)