Two, Infinity, and Beyond
The literary critic, Northrop Frye, once said, “One person by himself is not a complete human being.” Now, in context, Frye said this because in his structuring of language, the second level is social. In order to be social, one needs the other, thereby making two essential. Without another, language is merely a bag of nouns and adjectives.
It’s possible to argue, as well, from a Biblical perspective, that God, in Genesis 1, acknowledges that one human being by himself is not good; so, according to the creation structure, humanity in oneness is incomplete. By the time Eve is made from Adam and the creation mandate is given, God announces that it is very good.
One of the things that makes two superior to one, especially in marriage, is the element of multiplicity that is brought into the new establishment of oneness. The two become one. But the two become one in distinction from either of the previous states of oneness. It’s a new kind of one. Alone, either spouse was merely male or female. When joined by the marriage covenant, the individuals remain male or female, but in the union they share their perspectives. I now have a feminine perspective, not because I’ve become effeminate, but because my wife is mine and I am my wife’s. She has a masculine perspective, not because she has become masculine, but because she, in the marriage covenant, has a male that is hers. James Jordan will talk about this union creating something like a superhuman.
Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.
There is something like an implied transition into three that two holds within itself. Communication is inevitable when you have two and thus you have a necessity of three simply by the existence of two. Does the above passage from Ecclesiastes end on the supremacy of three strands because two implies three? Is it because God is a present member in the marriage covenant, as it says in Malachi 2:15? Or, is it because if you like two, you are going to love three?
At present, my wife is pregnant with our tenth child. She and I have differing opinions as to which transition was the hardest. Despite having a decent number of children, I’ve always asserted that the transition from no children to one child was, by far, the hardest transition. My wife is convinced that the movement from one to two was the most difficult paradigm shift.
Every number has an important job to do. The job of two is to move from singularity into multiplicity. This is a different transition even from the movement from zero to one. In this way, my wife is correct that the transition from one to two is a uniquely challenging event. It moves the parents out of a single subject to a necessary split screen of multiple plots. Perhaps, this is why God gave us biopic perspective when he built our eyes, not simply so that we could see things from two angles, but so that we could understand things from more than one angle. The possession of biopic perspective is not limited to two, because it is a migration from one to many. My wife would say, “Once you have more than one kid, it’s all the same.”
There is a common philosophy finger trap that goes, “If a tree fell in the woods and no one was around to hear it, would it still make a sound?” The framing of this question connects the worlds of epistemology and ontology. Sound is information that is gathered empirically by a sensual receptor. Do any of our words and meanings apply if the relationship between transmission and reception is broken? Can transmission be called transmission if there is no reception? Why can’t birds, grass, the ground, the air, the sun, or any other environmental participant function as the “hearer”? Because they are unable to communicate to us about it. If you can’t speak, we assume you can’t hear. Just listen to people raise their voice to folks who only communicate in a foreign language.
In light of this, the famous conundrum can be rephrased in order to clarify the meaning. If a tree fell in the woods, in order for a person to testify as to whether or not a sound was made, a second person would be required. This means that the Bible is deeply accurate when, in the Law, two witnesses are required in order to establish a legal truth. To testify as to the sound of the tree falling, is a secondary stage of language in which a second person is required in order for the testimony to be received and confirmed. The etymological basis of the word testimony is “to state” or “to make an attestation.” This requires someone to be listening.
One person by himself is not a complete human being because humanity is a unit comprised of many. The salvation of the human race is dependent upon all those who belong to God being brought into communion with God and with one another. There is no means appointed to accomplish this other than the communication of the Gospel. Isolation is not just kryptonite for the Church, it is anti-human.
Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment. - Proverbs 18:1
