Welcome to the world of Janus! This is the first of many articles in which Janus will explore topics of interest. Janus is interested in those areas of life where there is a disagreement, a true dichotomy with massive differences between opposing viewpoints. While Janus may not be able to perform the miracle of bridging the divide, at least he aims to provide a view across so that mutual understanding becomes possible. Janus may also choose to write about other things entirely, that is his prerogative, but the name and logo carry the message or at least the implication "Janus looks both ways", so he cannot wander too far from this chosen path.
Janus, you may have gathered by now is an incorrigible optimist. He will also attempt to convince you that he is also a pragmatist. The much underrated Dr. Pangloss said that "All is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds." A philosophy once held up to ridicule but now effectively restated as the Anthropic Principle. Janus adheres to this basic philosophy, stated modestly and succinctly as Janus's Three Laws:
Reality is to a very large extent deterministic; human beings unfortunately are not. Conflicts do not arise because reality is different for different people but because people have different views and interpretations of reality. The satisfactory resolution of a dichotomy is not to change reality to fit a particular view nor to convince one side that their view is incorrect. Such solutions are possible but rarely satisfactory. The lasting solution is to provide a new view of the real world which encompasses the conflicting ones and that everyone can accept.
We now reach the point to explain why, when Janus places such an emphasis on twoness, his first article is entitled "The Power of Three". Janus will show first that three is good, without of course necessarily implying that two, or any other number, is intrinsically bad. When Janus has convinced you of the desirability of threeness, he will spring on you the fascinating result that two implies three; it is just not possible to have two without an emergent third. You, will then be invited to consider the obvious corollary from these two propositions, namely that for any two-way division, no matter how profound the gap, there is a third idea, viewpoint, interface, call it what you will, that transforms the antagonism of twoness into life-enhancing threeness.
In his seminal work The Laws of Form, Spencer-Brown starts his explanation of life, the universe and everything by drawing a distinction. Others such as Russell and Whitehead have similiarly tried to develop everything from nothing by a logical process. In the beginning there is nothing, the Void, zero. For any form of reality to exist there must be something other than universal nothingness, there must actually be something. It must be possible to draw that distinction and separate out something, an object, unity, from the void. From this first primal distinction things then begin to flow fast, having made the big jump from zero to one, two must now follow automatically because in order to distinguish our first object there must be a boundary that separates it from everything else; a boundary has two sides and so we must have two entities, the one we have distinguished and everything else. Indeed we can go further because we must now have three distinct objects or ideas, the one we first distinguished, everything else and the totality of the two combined. Each is clearly different from the other two though there are of course relationships between them. We have now achieved the most primitive stable system. Mathematicians may then proceed with their sets and operators and develop the rest of the natural numbers, set theory, logic and Fermat's Last Theorem but three is the starting point, the basis of Mathematics and the natural world.
Before we leave the realm of Mathematics we should note that the simplest geometrical figure is the triangle, it is not possible to enclose space with just two lines, you need three. The triangle is perhaps the figure that is best known with the most theorems and results so that everything can be known about a triangle starting with a minimal amount of information. So important is the triangle that many, if not most, results about more complex figures rely on dividing the figure into triangles.
In the physical, three dimensional, world the three-legged tripod is well known as the simplest stable structure. Indeed it is the most stable structure. Imagine a three-legged stool; no matter how many times you take a little bit off one of the legs, or add a bit on, the stool sits there solidly and does not rock. If you look instead at a four-legged stool or chair then a small addition to one of the legs will cause the chair to rock. That situation gets worse the more legs are added.
The association of three with stability is carried over into more spiritual areas; many if not most religions have at their heart some form of Trinity or triad. The Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is of course an obvious example but others range from the oldest of Indian symbols, Chintamani, the sign of happiness, through the faery triad of trees (Oak, ash, and thorn), the three Fates, three Graces, three Gorgons and the three Furies from Ancient Greece to three components of successful living from Scientology: affinity (emotional responses), reality (an agreement on what is real) and communication (the exchange of ideas).
The list is almost endless. The three kingdoms of the physical world: animal, vegetable and mineral; the three aspects of a human being: mind, body and spirit; the three Rs: reading 'riting and 'rithmetic; the rallying cry of all decent and honourable people everywhere: liberty, fraternity and equality. The number three pervades all aspects of life, but problems arise wherever its presence is ignored to leave the inherently unstable dichotomy.
So now we reach the point where we must live up to the title of this essay and demonstrate the power of three. Where we have instability and conflict we must show that the addition of a third factor, one that encompasses the warring two, can bring stability and harmony. Politicians know that this is a desirable goal; "The Third Way" is often used as a slogan, though unfortunately it usually means accepting the proponents own particular set of policies to avoid the traditional choice. Janus, in the tradition of true melodrama, is not going to give you the solution to all the worlds problems here and now. That will be the modest goal of later works. For the moment though some juicy titbits must be placed on the hook to ensure that you return for the feast that is to come. Politics is as ever a good starting point. The traditional dichotomy here is the age-old division between left and right, the push from the bottom and pull from the top, the party of the rich and the party of the poor as so wonderfully portrayed in Ben Okri's The Famished Road. Does the path to universal prosperity and happiness lie in the fair distribution of the world's resources so that everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the best of their ability at the expense of the especially gifted who may be held back by the lack of incentives; or does it lie in giving a free hand to the entrepreneurs to grab whatever they can in the hope that it will be in their best interest to carry the rest along with them even if the weakest get left far behind. The traditional compromise lies in regulation and taxation, which angers all and pleases none. Janus proposes a more all-encompassing solution based on accountancy. Yes you did read that right, the solution to one of the worlds oldest and most intractible dilemmas lies in accountancy.
One brief example will help but you must wait for the rest. A large manufacturing company realises that it can manufacture its goods very much more cheaply in a developing company and transport them to its markets; "the bottom line" in this case is clear and vital, more profit, more money for the shareholders and higher management, more investment and growth. The current facilities are closed, there is much unemployment and more of the nations wealth actually seeps abroad. Eventually the developed country, the current market, loses out because its inhabitants can no longer afford the goods, the developing country will soon want more for its now more educated people and will either lose out as the work moves on to somewhere cheaper or if it is lucky become the market for goods which may well be produced in the original now poorer country. All may end up reasonably well but at the expense of much unhappiness for many and excessive returns for the few. The problem lay in the original "bottom line" which only included the immediate local factors and ignored the wider concerns. If that bottom line were to include factors relating to the well-being of all the people directly and peripherally concerned then we may find a completely different attitude. Unemployment may become too expensive, transporting goods around the globe when they can be made locally may become more expensive. Assistance to developing countries becomes worthwhile because it brings in new markets, more people who can buy and of course manufacture the goods. Shareholders and directors still make money, and all because we changed the way we worked out the all important bottom line.
Read more about the accountants who can save the world and other enthralling topics, by coming back here to Janus, who looks both all three ways. Top