Why not?
Only two?
Good point. But I’m trying to keep it simple. Say, bi-gnosticism. What’s with the fetish for singularity?
well, if were assuming that one mind is not the case, then there seems no reason to stop at two minds.
one seems the logical stopping point, because you cannot have zero minds and still be “of a mind”. so, its either the most logically-simple explanation (i.e. the necessary minimum) or set an arbitrarily-high number of minds for no apparent reason at all.
unless you can show why two minds would be better than three minds without this same reasoning showing also that one mind would be better than two…
I don’t have any conclusive thoughts on the matter, but will run with your query 3XG.
2 minds would be the minimal plurality of minds, whereby each additional mind would slide into the infinite slope of slipperiness… which, mind you, may lead to an infinite minds phenomenon that has its own potentials (but that’s not my concern here).
Hypothesizing that a plurality of mind has advantages over a monolithic mind, 2 is thus the experimentally safe minimum.
Amongst other things, 2 mind mind affords dialogue within one being, enhancing that being’s ability to dialogue with other beings.
1 mind mind constantly must cull dissident thoughts out of itself, and present adversity to minds of other beings who challenge its self-consistency.
Phenomenologically, 2 mind minds allow each mind to witness the fault/flaw between/within them/one. I suggest something relevant to “truth” is found in this flaw amidst minds. One mind minds must rely on solely external faults to witness the flaw, and are unaccustomed to experiencing it as a creative expression, so they tend to diminish its relevance to their own self-consistent position.
nice answer. i can agree with this, that 2 minds or “2 mind mind” can process in ways that 1 cannot, by virtue of a multiplied perspectives.
however, would not 3 minds be better, by this standard, than 2? 3 perspectives would be better than 2 from the point of view of multiplicity. and also from the point of view of “storage” of “faults” or failed ideas. with 1 mind, as you point out, that mind must experience faults which are external to itself alone, as it cannot directly experience itself outside of itself. with 2 minds, however, one mind might fault, while the other experiences this fault and so the entire 2 mind mind learns in the process… yet, with a 3 mind mind, one mind might fault, while the other two minds perceive this fault: one of these perceiving minds might fault in its perceiving or interpretation or conclusions about the fault of the first mind, while the second perceiving mind generates a better or more accurate/true understanding of the fault itself. this is a side-effect of the fact that no two minds would be identical in content or perspective, and so would ALWAYS generate different meanings and perceptions. so, if we are to assume (realistically) that there are gradients of information and degrees of truthfulness (of finite experience’s ability to detect truth), and further assume (also realistically) that most of these truths are not self-evident or compelte within themselves or upon first (or even second or third or fourth…) experience, then it follows that the more times a truth or data-set (belief or percept) is experienced, and from the more angles and perspectives of experiences, the better and more accurately this truth will be reintrepreted and regenerated within the mind itself.
3 mind minds would be better at this task of “decoding” or successfully interpreting reality than 2 mind minds, by virtue of their added perspective, as well as their ability to further “store” intermediate states of understanding and perception, between the 1 and 0 of “right” and “fault/wrong”. this intermediate state would allow the right and fault, or 1 and 0 states to interchange through this new medium of the “middle or undecided” third mind, allowing for a feedbacking of signals and views, back and forth until each mind settles upon a COHERENT view and understanding which best co-incides with the different perspectives of all three minds.
the average of the perceptions/experiences of a 3 mind mind would necessarily be better (more accurate and precise) than those of a 2 mind mind. doesnt this provide reason to conclude “being of three minds” instead of only two?
… as a side note, i wonder if this “two minds” has anything to do with the dual-nature (split hemisphere) of the brain (CNS) and peripheral nervous system themselves…
I don’t know…
-Imp
Hmmm… me & myself will have to cogitate on that. On the faces of it I’m fearing issues of triangulation and odd-mind-out scenarios… how many ways could one then be cruel to one’s selfs? Maybe two master-minds and a third slave-mind, as a storage dump (but what monster might rise from the muddle in there?). To allow 3 on the grounds of multiple perspective alone would, I think, just push into the slippery slope… but 3 is a magic number, so maybe.
Granted, it would better ensure lasting internal irresolution, which would be a good thing, to an extent. That middle-mind would probably be hardest to please, insofar as indecision might just be it’s raison d’etre… or then again, it could be a third-mind-in, like in a hockey fight, where one of the other two minds just gets it’s ass kicked soon as the middle mind decides between the two (in cases of binary choices).
Hey man, was that a crack at Canadian bi-identity?!
Nothing wrong with falling off a cliff, it’s hitting the bottom that hurts. Somehow if you completely let go of fixating on beint “of one mind”, I bet you’d seem pretty sane. Even singular. No sprouting heads. I mean, we’re all in freefall anyway.
Ya, that’s where the thought of infinite-mind mind becomes potentially appealing… totally giving up on having to predicate anything approaching a unitary perspective for one’s own pea brain… concentrating, rather, on everything else being “one”, which might make it easier to include oneself in “it all”…?
Or just include myself right from the start?
Include oneself from the start?! You’d have to be out of your mind!! Aaah… no mind. Is that equivalent to zero mind? 
Not sure. I’d include all of me. 
Is that “All of Me” as in the Steve Martin, Lily Tomlin movie? Now there’s the two-mind mind I was initially indicting. The question of having to get to know yourself as other. Now, if one mind became enlightened, that would be an curious predicament… or maybe not predicament, but curious nonetheless. …geez, we seem to be entering subtle babble here, are there rules on keeping it mundane? 
I’m getting confused. Keep up the good work! Mundane my ass.
Would con-fusion be the height of singularity? Perhaps the two-mind mind is precisely half as confused as the one mind. 
I can’t say I would go that far.
…but you’d do it secretly? 
Nah.
Don’t think I would either, really, especially as I have no clear impression of what I’m talking about.