Trivium and The Law of Three

Whenever and wherever we survey the natural world, around us or within us, we see nonrandom patterns at work, not only in objects but also in events. There have always been individuals among us consumed by the wish to understand these patterns, to be able to gaze upon the world and read its laws plainly, in effect to know the future. Attempts to understand these patterns are the basis of education itself, with historically mixed results.

T H E   E N N E A G R A M

The enneagram is inarguably the most useful tool to any teacher or any student, no matter the discipline. One of my aims is to prove just that. Through the lens of the enneagram, the ‘what, how and why’ of anything you care to observe comes into surprising focus.

You may look on it and think of it as the fundamental hieroglyph of a universal, objective language.

At first, the symbol may be daunting or imposing - complicated, at least. It comprises three geometrical figures – a circle, a triangle and an irregular hexad – each signifying a universal law. When those laws are known and understood, what once looked random will look orderly, even trivial.

U N I O N   O F   T H R E E   A N D   S E V E N

Trivial?

I use the word in its medieval sense of ‘rudimentary’ since it fits the context so perfectly. Method and guidance are indispensable to correct education. In order to demonstrate this, I will apply the classical method of the three-way path, known by its Latin name, the Trivium.

GRAMMAR – LOGIC – RHETORIC

The laws informing the construction of the enneagram are the Law of One, the Law of Three and the Law of Seven. As a whole, it symbolizes the union of these three laws. I will defer for another time a detailed discussion of both the Law of One and the Law of Seven.

For now, the Law of One may be stated thus:

ALL IS ONE

Unity is not something that our sense organs are designed to perceive. We naturally distinguish one thing from another, although we seldom, if ever, ponder the laws on which this division is based. As a result, many of our perceptions and impressions are effectively random.

This alone inspires a need for method, hence my choice of the Trivium. The relevant Wikipedia article includes Sister Miriam Joseph’s description, although I do not consider it to be a primary source, per se:

“Grammar is the art of inventing symbols and combining them to express thought; logic is the art of thinking; and rhetoric, the art of communicating thought from one mind to another, the adaptation of language to circumstance.”

I have my reservations and additions to these formulations, which are for most intents and purposes decent enough to begin with. Thus I will use this description as a point of departure, if not arrival. My application of these three Latin concepts to the Law of Three may seem modern and informal, yet I doubt they would inspire contemporary controversy.

GRAMMAR

The Grammar of the Law of Three is fairly straightforward. By convention, the Law of Three is depicted by a triangle, usually equilateral. One advantage of symbols over words is that by design they transmit the ideas of unity and the laws of its division across cultures and over time with minimal distortion. Some amount is virtually inevitable, though.

Another advantage is that by means of symbols, some of the inevitable distortion may be deciphered and decoded, so to speak.

Attempts to codify such impressions and ideas are nothing less than a striving to perceive a nonrandom world and exist there. This is where Intentional Fruition meets method. Indeed, if we knew and understood the laws of Creation, our best wishes, more often than our worst ones, might well become realities.

Grammar may be trivial, yet Creation is not. Any tool that enables accurate depiction of the ‘what, how and why’ of the unfolding of any process is a treasure. A Grammar of the Law of Three is only one among several.

LOGIC

The Logic of the Law of Three is also straightforward, if less apparent. Meanwhile, the proposed description of logic as the ‘art of thinking’ is made of entirely undefined terms.

It may not be wrong exactly, but in a world where trash may pass for art and daydreams pass for thought, it may not necessarily be right, either. With grammar comes the ability to symbolize ideas and combine them - with logic, the ability to analyze impressions and relate them.

And yet what is logic, the thing itself?

I would not presume to have the final word on the subject or to spoil the mystery even if I could, but even that much is a good start – the WORD. Experience tells me that logic is roughly the same as having ‘access to the LOGOS’, which translates as more than merely WORD. LOGOS is the law – the proposition, the statement of how things are – for a start.

The triangle is the symbol of the LOGOS within the enneagram, a sign denoting that some force of law is at work. Scholars have always struggled to formulate a concise statement of this otherwise simple Greek word, LOGOS. Whereas it is challenging enough to compare the merits of someone else’s attempts, the real pay-off results when you try to do so yourself.

Since it is relevant, tangential and trivial (an usual coincidence of adjectives in praise), I shall paraphrase Heraclitus:

1. “The LOGOS is eternal yet humanity proves unable to understand it, both before hearing of it and even after the first telling. All things agree with the LOGOS, yet men and women are like babes when they experience my words and deeds, though I distinguish each by its nature and tell exactly how it is. They fail to notice what they do when they are awake as fully as they forget themselves when asleep.” 
2. “Although the LOGOS is universal, most individuals live as if they had their own private understanding.” 
3. “Do not take my word for it. The LOGOS says that all things are one. It is wise to agree.”

I intend to build my telling of the Law of Three on a similar foundation. I, too, have three impressions to share. Mine are concerned with the ‘what, how and why’ of processes as they arise and unfold in the real world, on any and all scales.
  

Processes are a union of three distinct, though complementary forces, which are Affirming, Denying and Reconciling. Staying true to the method of the Trivium, I will employ a symbol to denote each, respectively.

The use of symbols is preferred over the use of names since the latter change with context and depth of focus, among other variables. The former may be applied universally and at any time. Also, the practice reminds the seeker to look for all three forces in any process, which may be more opaque to some than others – especially the third, or reconciling.

As the examples become more specific, the relativity of names becomes less confusing. Generally speaking, mankind is born ‘third-force blind’. So, too, is the rest of the animal kingdom, for that matter.

This cognitive hurdle may be surpassed with proper preparation and instruction. The same may not be said of the rest of the animal kingdom. No amount of method and guidance will impart rhetorical ability to an animal.

How and why this is so is connected to the Law of Three and may be explained by it, but that is another story for another day.

Again, the forces themselves may be described by different names. Common synonyms for ‘Affirming’ include ‘Positive’ and ‘Active’, or, even, ‘Yang’ or ‘The Father’. For ‘Denying’, other common names include ‘Negative’ and ‘Passive’, or even, ‘Yin’ or ‘The Son’.

The experience of these two forces, ‘Affirming’ and ’Denying’, whether internally or externally, is known to anything that breathes, whether animal or vegetable. At a minimum, we, the living, tend to notice the difference between pleasant and unpleasant - sometimes even the polarizing effect this has on our attention and our efforts, too. In practice, though, the assumption that pleasure is positive and pain is negative, this presumptive confusion of terms, may be tragically misleading.

A F F I R M - D E N Y - R E C O N C I L E

A more complete perspective includes a third point of reference, without which the linear existence limited to positive and negative is literally flat, two-dimensional. In general, the elusive third force is manifest in the medium or in the result of a process or product under consideration.

This ‘third dimension’ introduces relativity, without which positive and negative forces may be difficult to distinguish correctly. No less important to the cause of Human Potential and Intentional Fruition is the experimentally verifiable fact that without some other force at work, positive and negative impulses tend to cancel one another out, producing nothing. Synonyms for the third, or ‘Reconciling’, force include ‘Neutralizing’, ‘Harmonizing’ and ‘The Holy Spirit’.

This idea of three forces may be described otherwise, based on a slightly different observation, on a slower, possibly atemporal frame of reference – as more of a snapshot.

Products and predicaments are triadic. They unfold from exactly three interdependent sources. With the right method, all three may be recognized.

By now, though, some simple and concrete examples are necessary.

Because we often try to ‘do’ things, to push our will, we notice that the world pushes back. This is obvious when we try to make, or break, any habit. Suppose that most nights you tell yourself to get right out of bed tomorrow when your alarm clock rings but then, instead, each morning you ‘snooze’ for 20-30 minutes.

H O W   T O   M A K E   A   N E W   H A B I T

How can you free yourself from the cycle and make a new habit? Or, suppose you wish that you could quit smoking or drinking alcohol. How can you free yourself from the cycle and break the old habit?

Can you see what is missing? The wish to change, no matter how powerful it may be, will not exceed the force of inertia. At most, it will be equal to the resistance (and even that is unlikely) and will yield only temporary and/or illusory gains.

The wish is spent overcoming the inertia.

W I S H   V E R S U S   I N E R T I A

Without introducing a third force, nothing new will result. In practice, that third force may be one of several things, depending on the circumstances. One possibility is to work with a partner to overcome the impasse.

Options vary, especially if you know of them.

An altogether different example might help to clarify the cooperation of the three forces. Consider a hammer and a nail - the hammer constitutes an active force in relation to the passive nail. Furthermore, they could easily be a rock and a wooden peg, or power drill and a lag screw, even a stapler and a staple; the principle is the same.

The objects in question are irrelevant to studying how the law operates - their relation to one another is what matters, which may be codified by the symbols (+) and (-).

Can you see what is missing?

In this case it is wood (or possibly paper, where staples are concerned). Without it, the other elements would have no medium (0) to join them and make them useful. The complete triad may be pictured as:

H A M M E R  (+),  N A I L  (-),  W O O D  (0)

Once more, an altogether different example might help. This time consider an ordinary game, from Mahjong to Monopoly or from billiards to baseball; which one makes no difference. Any game may be triadically pictured as:

P L A Y E R S  (+),  E Q U I P M E N T  (-),  R U L E S  (0)

From the partial (i.e. subjective) point of view of one of the players, it might seem that “I” am the active, or positive, force and that my opponent, “the other”, is the negative force. Heraclitus might call this perspective out as ‘having one’s own private understanding’. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Greek word for that predilection is idiot. 

Any player (+) is active, whether in a game of solitaire or king-of-the-hill. The equipment (-) may be a tile or a table, a ball or a stick – that which is ‘acted upon’ – it might be a basement or a stadium. The result is determined by the rules (0), which impart form and meaning to the players’ (+) actions.

RHETORIC

Information and language may be served by logic and grammar, however something more is needed for the expression of will. Here, too, “the art of communicating thought from one mind to another, the adaptation of language to circumstance”, has merit but still fails to satisfy.

The key and the measure of rhetoric is the ability to convince anyone with “their own private understanding” of the truth by way of elementary principles, to change others’ minds, to persuade.

A N   A L M O S T   M A G I C A L   E N D O W M E N T

Rhetoric is a volatile art. This is especially evident whenever its techniques and practice are reserved for specially designated classes. Persuasiveness is an almost magical endowment, but without virtue it leads to untruth, slavery and ruin, eventually but predictably.

T H E   T R I V I U M

The Law of Three clarifies the situation.

Triads are of finite variety and may be qualified by the order of the application of forces. The variety of triads, or of processes, is independent of their magnitude. You can find instances of growth or decay on any scale, from the smallest to the largest, and they will unfold nonrandomly.

Growth and decay are not the only types of process that occur, of course. This may come as a surprise to readers who assume that the enneagram is a set of personality types and think no more about it. Processes, too, are typical, in accord with the LOGOS.

There are exactly six permutations of three forces. The implications of this idea to the study of Human Potential and Intentional Fruition are as subtle as they are enormous. I can only reparaphrase Heraclitus: “Do not take my word for it”.

Ultimately, whether large or small, partial or impartial, only six types of events ever really happen.

If you are wondering what those six types may be, then you might have a taste for mystery and enjoy this blog. I promise not to disappoint, and actively encourage and solicit questions. Your questions are an ideal framework for any description of the six processes that I can offer.

Meanwhile I wish to relate the Law of Three to the Law of One, which was stated above, even if only by analogy. What joins these domains to our own and others is the idea of scale.

Unity is too vast to encompass from a lowly frame of reference such as ours. Similarly, the Law of Three is almost imperceptible and only slightly denser. Our frame is even denser and grittier still, as are the even lower layers.

M O R E   L A W   M E A N S   L E S S   F R E E D O M

Unity is so opaque to our senses that we do not notice how we constantly carve it up or even where we come from. At the top, so to speak, there is one law, and it applies from top to bottom. Below, there are more laws, but they ramify only downward.

Take a moment to digest this, because it bears directly on Human Potential: Where there are more laws there is less freedom, and there are fewer laws ‘above’. I will add that true creation is rare and, unlike evolution, it is not a bottom-up process. Rather, it is the ultimate (or perhaps primordial) and purest form of freedom.

The foregoing are impressions, echoes of the Law of Three, but not an explicit statement. Nevertheless they bear repetition. This much has been established for ‘worlds’ of different sizes:

1. Processes are a union of three distinct, though complementary, forces, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, which are Affirming (+), Denying (-) and Reconciling (0); mankind is born ‘third-force blind’. 
2. Products and predicaments unfold from exactly three interdependent sources; with the right method all three may be recognized. 
3. Triads are of finite variety and may be qualified by the order of the application of forces; there are exactly six permutations of three forces.

The statement of the Law of One indicates how the laws in one ‘world’, so to speak, might ramify and operate in another, might cross pollinate, ultimately creating ‘worlds within worlds’. Triads are a vector, though, and a consequence of cognitive fragmentation, not a law unto themselves. The statement of the Law of Three that connects it to the foregoing and to the Law of Seven (forthcoming) may be made thus:

THE HIGHER AND THE LOWER BLEND

IN ORDER TO ACTUALIZE THE MIDDLE

The reason I endeavor to set all this down is threefold. First, it will clarify, if not ‘trivialize’ my other soliloquies and designs in this blog. Second, it establishes a method. Third, these data are absent from nearly all instruction of the enneagram, to my curious consternation.

. .   . .   . .