Amazing exchange Joe & Peter. I was browsing the Ham / Joe thread thinking, where is this going ? Saw someone pick up on the IV - V - I progression and thought, hang on, we're playing the blues.
Yet still attracted to "harmonic" explanations, of things that arise in complex adaptive systems - and the useful "rules of thumb" (of 7, or 3, or 80/20, or octaves, or fractals, or Fibonnaci series) that people extract from these patterns - like cicada reproductive cycles. Of course seeing the repeated patterns / numbers as fundamental causal "rules" is the deadly error. Harmony is the clue, not the cause. Ian On 2/27/08, Joseph Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 2/27/08 5:07 AM, "Peter Corteen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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'. > > Hi Peter and all, > > [Joe] > Thank You! For informing me of Pythagoras' contribution to the musical > scale. Many times I have acknowledged that while Pirsig, in his view of > evolution opts for four levels, my use of the musical scale in singing, for > me is a better model for evolution. The musical scale may be a better > analogue for evolution. I expect you have no opinion on the matter. > > > 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. > > [Joe] > I assure you, Peter, it is my opinion. I recognize the terminology you use. > I do not know what your experience is, but your tone is chiding and > dismissive. That is not the way I try to make sense out of my experience. > > > 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'. > > [Joe] > I have been 20 years away from a group leader. I have been 45 years away > from the Dominican monastery. To say I have not been influenced by my > education is silly. However, I try to think my own thoughts from my > experience. When I read Pirsig's books in 2000 I was happy later to find > MOQ_discuss on line. > > > 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. > > [Joe] > Yes, Peter, I am gullible. When I find a view of reality that interests me > I accept it until I don't accept it anymore. Fool me once, Shame on You! > Fool me twice, Shame on Me! MOQ_discuss is not shameful. I am sorry you > found it so! > > > 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. > > [Joe] > IMO Evolution is a sensible explanation for different Levels. The > metaphysics of evolution are open to question. I accept SOL in my own way. > The MOQ meta-level seems to be a discovery of great significance. > > > Leave them Joe, before they take over your life. > > [Joe] > Thank you! For your regard for my welfare! You seem to speak from a deep > hurt. I empathize with your experience of distrust! > > > Regards > > > > -Peter > > Joe > > > 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/ > > > 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/ > 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/
