Hi Joe and Ham,

History tells us that the musical scale was established by Pythagoras after
he noticed the pleasing harmonies of different sized anvils being struck by
blacksmiths; he discovered that the most pleasing harmony was when one anvil
was exactly half the size of the other producing an octave, and the musical
fifth was produced when one anvil was 2/3 size of the other. Experimenting
with mono chords revealed the other notes. Of course, Ham is correct in
pointing out Bach's Well Tempered Clavier which solves the circle of fifths
problem and shows that the various harmonies are all related to the square
root of two; this was probably just too many numbers for Gurdjieff to cope
with and besides, because of the elegant solution, he would not then have
been able to claim it was a 'lawful inexactitude'.

Joe wrote:
> IMO In the octave of universal creation the sixth place is earth,
> starting from an Absolute, Do (1), -(shock), Si, 3 (level of all
> possible system of worlds), La 6 (Level of our Milky Way),
> Sol 12 (level of our Sun), Fa 24 (level of Planets as one mass,
> Mi 48 (level of our earth), Re 96 (Level of our Moon), the final
> note. (The Commentaries by Maurice Nicoll Vol 1 p 122.).

How can that be your opinion, Joe, if you read it in some book? Nicoll got
all that from Ouspensky who got it from Gurdjieff who said he got it from
some secret (oh sorry esoteric) brotherhood somewhere in Asia. Gurdjiefff,
who started out as a stage hypnotist, then added all the crap about shocks,
all worlds, the numbers etc. and then, for his own ends, said it was all the
divine law of Seven, he called it  heptaparaparshinok (can't be bothered to
check whether I spelt that right), that and, triamazikamno, his other law of
three. This stuff is just ludicrous! I know you have to believe it Joe
otherwise they'll sack you from the group. You can say you don't understand
it though and they'll tell you that you haven't done enough self-remembering
yet.

Have you understood how heptaparaparshinok relates to the food octave yet
Joe? It all has a kind of consistency but on close examination is completely
arbitrary and invented. How long have your group leaders been doing 'the
work' Joe? If you've got the nerve ask them which man number they are and do
they have a Kesdjan body yet! I honestly don't know how you can go in for
this esoteric creationist stuff and still claim to be interested in the MoQ,
perhaps you think you might recruit someone? At least Gurdjieff was
sufficiently people savvy to stop short of the mystical seven and only
claimed he was man number six. He persisted in smoking and gormandising too
much (didn't his food octave tell him this wrong), he became grossly
overweight and kept crashing his cars nearly killing himself on several
occasions; aside from that he was a megalomaniac which is very evident from
the first page of his first book 'Herald of the Coming Good' - now withdrawn
from print by his surviving pupils but it's also evident in his three volume
'Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson'.

The Cult of Gurdjieff has split up into many different sects now, his major
pupil, Ouspensky, was the first to split off and form his rival school. In
my opinion, Gurdjieff people can be divided into two; gullible, skivvy sheep
or manipulative, power hungry fascists who think it is a virtue to 'tread on
people's corns'. I think you are the first variety Joe, otherwise you
wouldn't be wasting your time here.

Gurdjieff's system just does not fit with the MoQ. Gurdjieff said that
psychologically man is devolving; he said that pre-Greek era human beings
were not corrupted as they are today and people back then were more in tune
with divine law. Pirsig and Julian Jaynes (and many others I'm sure) also
cited a turning point that came with the ancient Greeks; but whereas Pirsig
and Jaynes see that turning point as an evolution, Gurdjieff did not and
that's why it doesn't fit.

Leave them Joe, before they take over your life.

Regards

-Peter
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to