Natural Hearing (Aristotle's Physics)
Lecture 34: The Principle of Three Across All Knowledge

Transcript
================================================================================

Now, but let's stop in the thing here. And stop comes to the idea that three is enough, huh? Three is all. And it's such a common thing in the arts and sciences and in life that one should stop and think about that, huh? Three is enough, and sometimes three is all. Well, Aristotle is in the book on the universe there. He's talking about there being only three dimensions, right? And of course, in geometry or mathematics we can show there's only three dimensions because we can show that you can't draw more than three lines, each of which is at right angles to the other, what? Two, right? I've drawn these two angles, lines at straight, at right angles to each other, right? Now, if you have a third line here, right, perpendicular to the page here, which is at right angles to both of those, you know? An extended two, you know, that was a sign to the board, right? But can you draw a fourth line? It's going to be at right angles to these three. No, no. But in the book on the universe, when he talks about this, he assumes the reason from geometry, and all he gives is a sign that three is all there is, right? And sign is drawn from language, right? The fact that if you have just two, we say both, and three is the first number about which we say all. So if you and I are going to the movies, we'd say we're both going, right? We wouldn't say we're all going. We're both going. But if you and I and the third person were going, we'd say, what? We're all going, huh? And that's kind of a sign that very often three is all there is. Okay? And this is a good example of it, right? Aristotle says two is not enough, but three is all you, what, need, huh? Now, that isn't always the case, and we'll see even in Aristotle, right? He doesn't think this is always the case, right? But it is common enough that it's worth, what, stopping and noting, huh? Okay? Now let me just kind of run through life a bit and run through all the arts and sciences to kind of illustrate this a bit, huh? Okay? How many meals do you need? Yeah, most people think you need three, right? And they seem to. And sometimes, you know, I'd skip lunch at school to lose weight or something, like I'm getting too much weight. And then you tend to stuff yourself in the night or something. And, of course, the secretaries are always trying to lose weight. You know, secretaries are a big woman. And that's not the way to go, you know? They all know that. So you can't just, you know, you seem to need three meals, huh? But now, also with a meal, right? You know, like in the main course, don't you seem to need three things? You seem to need a meat or a fish, something like that, right? And you need something like potato or rice or something of that sort, and some kind of a vegetable, right? You know? And if you just have two of these, there seems to be something kind of missing, right? Okay? I remember my brother Mark saying, like when he was a bachelor, right, and just cooking for himself. Well, it's kind of, you know, too much to be cooking three things, right? So maybe you cook some meat and you have a salad or you, you know? Yes. But you always felt there was something missing without that third thing, right? And one way he got around it was when you cook the meat and the vegetable and then get some of that good San Francisco sourdough bread or something, right? But that sense of incompleteness without the, what, third thing, huh? See? When I was in Quebec, you know, and you'd be looking, you know, eating the restaurants a lot as a student, and you'd see the sign says, you know, prices and so on, repas complet. What does that mean? Three quarters. Yeah, yeah. You get some kind of an appetizer, you know, nothing necessarily great, right? Then the main chorus and some kind of dessert, maybe joke or something, but I mean, you know, as if it's not complete without those, what, three things, right? You see? Those are some very simple examples just from daily life of how two doesn't seem to be enough. You seem to need three meals a day, right? You seem to need, you know, for complete meal, repas complet. They're not philosophers, they're just, you know, that's what we speak in daily life, right? But everybody understands why repas complet has those three parts. And the main chorus seems to have those three, huh? When you're a student, you know, the Quebecers tend to cook their meat less than we do, see. So if we're really hungry, your plate comes out, you eat all the French fries or the vegetables, and then you call the waitress and say the meat isn't done enough. And she takes it back to the thing and they don't just bring the piece of meat out there. It's a walkie pit. Yeah. It's a little trick, you know. We learned. But it seems, you know, incomplete just to have the meat on there, right? And so, but now let's go to the fundamental arts or sciences, you know, the trivium and the quadrivium, right? Okay. Now, did three have anything to do with logic? When you studied logic? The mind. Yeah, yeah. That's all there is, right? Understanding what a thing is, understanding the true or the false, and then reasoning, right? That's all there is. Three is enough. But in the syllogism, right, you have that three and two, don't you? The syllogism has two premises, but three terms, right? Two and three. Okay? You tend to, in a definition, have at least three parts, huh? And that's because, you know, as Porphyry defines even the difference, it's said of more than one species. So you need at least two differences. It's like in the definition of squares, an equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral, right? Let's go to rhetoric now, which is in the trivium, too, huh? Okay. Now rhetoric is the art of what? Persuasion. Persuasion, right? Okay. And how many means of persuasion are there? Three. Three. It was Aristotle who discovered that there's three means of persuasion, right? And the three means of persuasion are the image you project of yourself and the way you move the emotions and the prejudices of your, what, audience, and then the arguments or apparent arguments you get. And, you know, when the art of rhetoric started in Sicily, huh, in the Greek cities of Sicily, when they cast out the tyrants, and they got a more democratic form of government, then it became important to be able to persuade the jury or persuade the assembly, right? And, uh, but at first what they're emphasizing was the way to move the emotions, right? Like, you have to give something of a reason for the things you're navigating to, you see? But then Aristotle said they don't realize that the image that the speaker projects of himself is very important. That's why our politicians are always worrying about their image or redoing their image and so on, right? Okay? But if you want a good example of the three means of persuasion there and how they're ordered, read Shakespeare's play, Othello, right? Where Iago, the villain there, is trying to persuade Othello that his wife is unfaithful when she's completely innocent, a very good woman, in fact, Desdemona, right? But he first, you know, projects the image that makes him credible. He pretends to be, what, Othello's friend, right? But he also gives the appearance of a man who is very perceptive and sees into people, right? A close observer and so on, right? But he also gives the impression of a man that doesn't like to stay to suspicions, you know? Kind of got to force them out of him, right? A man who's very careful. He's thinking, right? It's the sort of man that you would implicitly, what, trust, right? You see? That's the first means of persuasion, right? And you'll see how Shakespeare reflects that, you know. This man undoubtedly knows more than he's willing to say, right? You see? You know, at one time, you know, Othello and Yagra coming along and Cassius was talking to Othello's wife and Yagra... I go like almost, I like that, that, you know, I like that, that, you know, something like that. What? Oh, nothing, nothing, nothing, my Lord. You know, and does he perceive something between my wife and Cassio that I don't perceive, right? I can see he was bothered by it, but he didn't want to say it because, you know. And of course, he's always worrying about, against being jealous, you know, or, you know. But then he starts to arouse the jealousy of what? Of Othello. Well, that's going to make him more easily persuaded, right? And as Iago himself says, even a flimsy proof, now, flimsy argument, right, will seem like holy writ scripture to a man who's this, what, jealous, right? Of course, we know that, that somebody, you know, who's emotionally disposed in certain ways, you know, easily convinced by even a, you know, weak argument, huh? And then he just presented to that, the very big argument about the agriculture, right? See? But, so there, but there are three means of persuasion, and to be a full possessor of the art of persuasion, you have to, what? Have all three things. That's all you need. How many species of rhetoric are there? Three, yeah. The two main ones are, what, what they call political rhetoric from its highest use, right? But in general, you know, when you're trying to persuade somebody to do something, right? About the future, right? And then there's, what, the courtroom rhetoric, right? Then there's what they call sometimes a ceremonial rhetoric, which you use on Memorial Day or something of this sort, when you're praising those who have acted nobly, right? That's all there is. Three. When Aristotle talks about the end of meaning being an argument from signs, he distinguishes three kinds of signs. He compares them to the three, what, figures of syllogism. He talks about example. There's three kinds of examples. There's the historical example, right? And then there's the invented example, the proportional example, and the fable. So there's three kinds, huh? When I used to teach the rhetoric in a little bit, I would, you know, give the students sometimes three, the three kinds of examples for the, what, same conclusion, right? So I'd say, you know, you're going to college, did you get married? Well, let me tell you about this guy that got married. He never finished his college degree, you know? He had to get out and get a job, you know? And he's, you know, the backwaters for the rest of his life and so on. That would be a historical example, right, huh? Okay? Now, proportional one. You know, they say that nations never appreciate their liberty, right? Until they lose it to some tyrant, huh? They don't really appreciate your liberty now, right? See, that's proportion, right, huh? Okay. Now, the fable is the weakest, right? But, you know, I say, did you ever hear about the goose that laid a golden egg, huh? See? Each day it laid a golden egg and said, oh, my, this is wonderful. Well, let's kill the goose and get it all. I guess that was the end of it, right? See? Well, each date you have with Judy or whoever it is, right? Oh, this is wonderful, you know? I don't know, Judy. I have her all the time, right? Well, they say climax spoils romance, huh? And so on, see? But, you know, you can give all three arguments, right? There are the three kinds of examples, huh? So, rhetoric, in a way, is, you can see, very much dominated by three there, huh? Now, take the third liberal art there in the Trivium, huh? Which is grammar, right? Okay? Now, there's three important there, huh? Well, a learned grammarian was one time explaining to me, he says, there is something in this idea that three is all, is all you need, he said. And I said, well, how's that? Well, he says, the fundamental part of speech is the noun. It's like a substance, in a way. It stands under everything else. Now, he says, you can add a word to the noun, right? You can add to it an adjective, or you can add to it a, what? A verb, right? Okay? So, an adjective, in a way, is a word that presupposes a word, right? Okay? Let's see, he's a man, and he's, what? A wise man, right? Or a foolish man, right? Or the adverb, the man walks, right? So, the man runs, right? Okay? But he says, you seem to require a third word. A word that presupposes a word, it presupposes a word. And what is that third word? Yeah. And, of course, he has the same name, but the adverb added here and there. See, it seems at times, I want to say not only that, let's say, Aristotle is wise, but he's, what? He's very wise, right? Okay? Okay? Or the girl is beautiful. I seem to need the third thing sometimes, right? She's very beautiful, right? Or the man runs, I want to say he runs fast or slow, right? I seem to need that third one, right? But I don't need a fourth kind, do I? That's it. Three is enough, huh? Kind of interesting, huh? You can't have articles and things like that, sorry, but I mean, basically, in order to express your thoughts, you need what? A word, and a word that presupposes the word, right? And a word that presupposes the word that presupposes the word. That's it. Fees it up. Is it? Express your thoughts. Okay? Now let's go to the poet, right? Okay? Of course, when the plot has a beginning, middle, and end, that's obviously a three. Okay? That's very important, that beginning, middle, and end. So I'm going to talk about it a bit with the Trinity, right? Okay? But beginning, middle, and end, that's very important, huh? And Aristotle, in the 20th term, he's given a little bit of the history there of the development of the drama. He speaks of how it reaches perfection when Sophocles introduced the third actor. Striking, right? The greatest plays of all came about when Sophocles introduced the third actor. I remember, you know, one time seeing a performance of Jean-Paul Sartre, you know, I think it's called No Exit, right? You have just three actors on the stage, right? And you get kind of an interesting story. You know, they end up down in hell, right? And of course, it seems like checking into a hotel doesn't seem to be particularly, you know, disagreeable at all. But the three persons who have checked in cannot just get along, right? In many, several ways, right? So it's kind of funny. But you seem to need three people to make something, what? Interesting, right? Just like, you know, the common expression, you know, what they call a love triangle, right? A love triangle makes things interesting, right? You see? You need that third thing, yeah? Okay. Apart from beginning, middle, and end, too, sometimes, notice how common it is in fiction that you have trilogies, like C.S. Lewis's trilogies and other authors' trilogies, huh? And, of course, some works, obviously, fall into three parts. You look at the divine common, it's obviously, you know, Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso, right, huh? Okay. Now, you look at, say, Milton's Paradise Lost, and that's divided into twelve books. Of course, there's a three, right? But if you read it, huh? The first four books, the action moves forward, right? The devil is approaching, right? Adam and Eve there were tranquilly living there in the Garden of Eden, right? And the temptation is about to take place, right? And then, all of a sudden, he interrupts that, right? And down comes an angel, a good angel, right? To warn Adam, right? And he recounts, then, the origin of the world from God, right? And the fall of the age, and so on. And that goes on for four more books. And then, what? The action resumes, right? The temptation and the fall, the last four books, right? So it naturally falls into, what, three parts, even though at first it has twelve books, right? Mm-hmm. You look at Fielding's novel, Tom Jones, which is in the great book, so-called, and that's got, what, 18 books, right? If you look a little more closely, the first six books take place, what, in the countryside, right? The second six books in the Inns and Tarrens on the way to London. And the last six books in London, right? They tend to fall into threes, huh? If you look at Shakespeare's images, they often fall into three, huh? In a very formal way in the, what, sonnets, right? I take the sonnet there about old age, huh? Well, you know how a sonnet has three quatrains, huh? And then a couple kind of concludes it. Well, this sonnet here has got three images for old age, huh? And the first one is, that time of year thou mayest in me behold, when the yellow leaves are none or few to hang upon those boughs, which check against the cold, bear, ruin, choirs, or like the sweet birds say. So he's comparing old age to that time of year, right? Late fall, right? Winter almost upon us, right? Then the second quatrain compares it to the last part of day. In me thou seest the twilight of such day as after sunset fatheth in the west, which by and by black night doth take away death's second self, which is all rest. That kind of a little bit of glow after the sun's gone down, which is right. Big darkness, right? That's in the light, right? You see? Then the third quatrain says, In me thou seest the glowing of such fire as on the ashes of his youth doth lie, as the deathbed runneth must expire, consume without just nourish, right? Okay? So you have three images of old age, right? But they're properly arranged, right? Because the last part of the year is longer than the last part of the day. The last part of the day is longer than that little, you know, for the little bit of glow before it goes out completely, right? And then he says, This thou perceivest, and makes thy love more strong, to love that well which thou must leave her alone. Beautiful, right? But you have three images, and then you have the, what? Summing up, right? You see? Okay. I was talking to a colleague one time, and he says, When I was, you know, taking speech course, the professor said, Never give more than three examples, huh? Because the audience can't take in more than three, huh? And he just, you know, do it, huh? Even Aristotle, in that first reading, he had three kinds of examples to show that the confused is before the, what? Distinct, huh? But you see Shakespeare in the plays, like when things are going pretty bad for Macbeth, right? And his wife has died, and so on. And he says, Out, out, brief candle! See? Okay, he's, you know, life has become pretty meaningless for him, right? But then he says, Life's but a walking shadow, A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. That's it. Three images, right? And he stops. Now he seems to be, in so many cases, huh? Enough. You don't want any more than, what? Three, huh? Now do you see that in music, too? Let me just give a little passage here. I jared down on time. Do you know Handel's Peel Sonatas, the Op. 5? Anyway, Listen to the notes here. I don't know what it is. The combination of two treble instruments or voices, Accompanied by a continual bass, Was much favored by composers of the Baroque period, As the simplest and most economical ensemble, Which could display most aspects of musical craft. All you needed was three instruments to display most. The three lines could move independently in an ingenious counterpoint, Or come together to define full harmonies. Alternately, either of the upper parts could be treated as a solo line, Giving opportunity for imitative exchanges, Or competitive virtuosity between the players. It seemed to be enough to do all these things. In the field of instrumental music, The idea of particular forms for complete works in trio texture, That is, trio sonatas, huh? Was established by the great, what? Italian violinist and composer, Archangelo Correlli, Really a very great composer, Who published four sets of twelve trio sonatas, Between 1683 and 1694, Which I have in CDs, okay? Now, Just a little quote here from Paul Henry Lane, He's got this famous biography of Handel, right? Of course, Handel was quite dependent upon Correlli, right? Great influence upon him, but Talking about this sonata here, From Opus 5 onward, That one we mentioned, huh? Handel combines the sonata with the suite, The gathered gravity and resonance of the one Frasional with the latter dance of the other. He says, I think this is a good judgment from what I know, The exquisitely turned trios of Opus 5, huh? Of Handel, Stand with box trio sonatas, right? At the head of the Baroque Chamber of Music Literature. Isn't that great, huh? But the trios seem to be enough, huh? Very interesting, huh? Okay. I'll take a couple examples here from Mozart during the piano concertos. Second from my Kind of the classic work by Gerlestone, right? On the Mozart piano concertos. He says, The period which precedes that of Mozart Shows a great diversity in the concerto form. The three-movement plan is not yet predominant. Here is the tradition of the Rondo finale. And the structure of each movement Varies from composer to composer. With all their variety of form and content, Mozart's piano concertos keep throughout Certain features which never change. They all have three movements. The first always begins with an orchestral prelude. The second is nearly always an andante. The third generally a Rondo. Now notice, In the major forms, You seem to always need, what? Three movements, huh? Okay. Now it became traditional in Vienna, Say they have four movements For the quartet to the quintets, huh? And the symphonies, right? Okay. But, say, Mozart's early quartets, Like, say, the Milano quartets, And the first one he wrote in Lodi, In Italy, They have just three movements, right? But they're considered complete works, huh? Okay. And if you look at Mozart's symphonies, They usually have four movements, The later ones, huh? But, so like, say the 38th and the 34th, Which are very mature works, They have just three movements, But they're considered complete, what? Symphonies. So, though you can have four movements, Three is what? A knot. The only really famous and great symphony I know, That has just two, Is known to posterity as Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. Is it? You seem to need that third thing, huh? That's interesting, huh? If you compare Mozart's piano concertos, Say, with his symphonies, huh? Which have four movements, usually. The piano concerto is closer to a drama. It has more of a plot with a beginning, Middle and end. While the symphonies are more an imitation of virtue, huh? So Mozart's, say, Mozart's Jupiter's symphony And his Linn's symphony, Which are both written in C major, That's not by accident either. They're both representations of what? Magnanimity, huh? And especially the Jupiter's symphony, huh? I remember saying to the iconic one time, You know, I think that the Jupiter's symphony's representation Magnanimity says, You're probably right there, see? But the 36th symphony anticipates that too, huh? I always remember the first time I heard The 36th symphony, It was at the St. Paul Public Library. They had a room where you could reserve And just go hear something, you know? And I first heard the 36th symphony in there. And of course, It was one of these days, you know, Where you had these big windows go up, You know, like two stories, And had the windows open like that. It was one of these days With the blue sky, These majestic clouds, As I first heard the Linn's symphony. But it's got an orchestral introduction, you know? And one critic said, you know, If all that had survived of Mozart Was this introduction, right? To the symphony Would have been sufficient To establish his greatness. You know, it's really, you know, You see that, huh? But they can share those. We really have a plot, huh? And the first movement And the second movement And the third movement You can kind of almost put in words sometimes How they form a beginning, middle, and enter. When I was in high school, I first noticed this, and I started to, you know, to write the plot of the 20th and the 23rd concerto, and so on, so to Father Baumgartner there at the seminary, and so on. And the first time I met De Connick, in fact, you know, he came down on the lecture tours, I wanted to meet him, so my professor at Kasurik, you know, had arranged some of these lectures and so on. So he was staying at Kasurik's house, so I had questions that Kasurik couldn't answer, and Kasurik said, when De Connick comes down, you ask him those questions. So he invited me to the house, and De Connick came down, and so I put all these questions that Kasurik couldn't answer, and De Connick gave it very clear and reasonable answer to all of them, right? And then Kasurik said, now, Dwayne, it's something to tell you. He wanted me to explain my ideas at Mozart, you know, and De Connick says, he liked them, he says, write them up, he says, we'll publish them, you know. I never got around to write them up, because I started, you know, reworking the ideas, you know, and trying to perfect them, and he's there, and got the thing done. But you can see, you know, in a symphony, like I say, in a concerto like the 23rd, which is many people's, in A major, their favorite, like Brother Mark's favorite concerto, and J. Hubbard teaches philosophy at the College of St. Thomas, it's his favorite, it's my wife's favorite, it's Occhio's favorite, we know the concertos. But, you know, the first movement, it's in the major key, and it's joyful, but there's some kind of sadness underlying it. There's little hints at that, right? In the development, there's a little bit, huh? So you expect something, you know? The second movement is written in F-sharp minor, which you hardly ever use, right? And you have this whole sadness coming out now that was underlying this, huh? But it's eventually purged away at the end, right? Right, okay? And then the third movement begins with a series of bright melodies, right, huh? You know, like a, they say it's like, what, you know, letting bright sunlight into a dark and musty room suddenly, right? Why, the first movement they compare to, you know, March day when the sun is shining but not very convincingly, right? But then, Mozart, you know, to show that there's not just escapism from that sadness, right, that you overcome it, you have a little bit of that sadness brought back. But you have this confidence that you can face it and overcome it. And you have to hear the music, because he's really doing that, right? And then, at the end, when he brings back that string of melodies, he has a device where he kind of interrupts it and makes it seem absolutely inevitable, you know? It's perfectly constructed, you know? What was that again? What? What was that again? The 23rd Piano Concerto in A Major, yeah. One of the greatest ones. And it's one of the simplest ones, too, you know, harmonically and so on. But, you see, the concertos being always in three movements, right? And that's partly the fact that they're closer to a drummer, you see? They're more an imitation of an action as a beginning, a middle, an end. Listen to what Girlstone says here. He's talking about the first movement of the concertos, huh? Because they tend to... Well, listen to what he says here first, huh? In the classical concertos, in the symphony, the first allegro is the chief movement, the one which sets its mark upon the work, and on it one is tempted to found one's judgment of the concerto as a whole. It begins with the freddy long tutti, at the end of which the solo enters. This prelude, which serves as a first exposition and contains the movement's main subjects, finishing the timing. The solo's entry starts a new exposition, usually longer, which ends as in a symphony in the key of the dominant or the relative major. Apart from this double exposition, a concerto first movement follows an out of form. The development comes next, right? Then the recapitulation. Okay, that's four, right? The second exposition is in its structure much more like the exposition of a symphony in the first, but the effect it produces on the listener is quite different from that of a true exposition. It gives one more the impression of a development. Some of the chief ideas are already known, they have been heard in the tutti, and the second exposition seldom reproduces them without change. The true development itself is so short compared with the rest of the movement, especially in Mozart, that one hardly thinks of isolating it from what precedes. The result is that for him who listens without worrying about forms or formulate, the real development begins with the solo entry, and instead of dividing a concerto first movement into four parts as do the textbooks, it would be more sensible to keep a threefold division. As for the sonata and the symphony, right? The 2D exposition, the development, including the solo exposition, the development, and the textbook sense, and the capitulation, right? But the sonata form lends itself to what? Division into what? Three, right? Incidentally, Mozart's operas are done in that form too, right? They begin in the written, the key, at least the Italian operas, and they work their way to the dominant, the middle point, and back to the tonic. So you have a beginning, middle, and end. And then each part is a beginning, middle, and end. I one time saw a book there, the Nozzi di Figaro, it was on the Nozzi di Figaro by the head of the Graduate School of Music there in Chicago. But it's showing how Mozart had a beginning, middle, and end as a whole, harmonically, and then each part had a beginning, middle, and end. But again, it naturally is falling into, what, degrees, huh? So we looked at grammar, rhetoric, logic, fiction, music, three plays a very important role, huh? But now I'll come back to natural science here, right? And go from the philosophy of nature where we saw the importance of three, huh? But this will come later on in the physics too. I mean, Aristotle would distinguish basically three kinds of motion, right? which give rise to the three parts of natural science in particular, change of place, change of quality, and growth, right? We were physics, chemistry, and biology, that division arose into three. But let's take a little example here from Heisenberg, from the experimental sciences, huh? And I have two passages here. One is from the Gifford lectures of physics and philosophy, and the other is from another question of Heisenberg's papers, which they call Across the Frontier, it's because he often, you know, takes a larger perspective. But I'll give you the one here from physics and philosophy. The theory of relativity is connected with a universal constant in nature, the velocity of life, right? That's one constant, right? Quantum theory is connected with another universal constant of nature, Planck's quantum of action. It's two, right? There must exist a third universal constant in nature. It's so clear, Heisenberg, huh? He says, this is obvious. For purely dimensional reasons. Makes you think of the three dimensions again, huh? He says, the universal constants determine the scale of nature, the characteristic quantities that cannot be reduced to other quantities. One needs at least three fundamental units for a complete set of units. This is most easily seen from such conventions as the use of the CGS system. That means centimeter, gram, second, huh? Of time. By the physicists, right? A unit of length, one of time, and one of mass is sufficient to form a complete set. But one must have at least three units. One could replace them by units of length, velocity, and mass, or by units of length, velocity, and energy, etc. But at least three fundamental units are necessary. It's so clear to Heisenberg. Now, going back to the universal constants. Now, the velocity of light and Planck's constant of action provide only two of these units. There must be a third one. I see this in other Nobel physicists like Gamal, right? And only a theory which contains this third unit can possibly determine the masses and other properties of the elementary particles. Judging from our present knowledge of these particles, the most appropriate way of introducing the third universal constant would be by the assumption of a universal length, the value of which would be roughly 10 to the minus 13 centimeters. That is somewhat smaller than the radiative light-atomic. It's interesting, right? He was convinced there had to be a third universal constant, and I've seen it at least in Gamal, who got to know about Christ, too, right? But, you know, it compares it to the fact that you have basically, what, three units like in the CGS system. Did that happen? I don't think it's established now, but, okay. Now, here's a statement of it again in an essay entitled Planck's Discovery, right? And the Philosophical Problems.