On Wednesday 27 February 2008 2:04 PM Peter writes to Joe: Hi Joe, [Peter] I'm genuinely relieved to hear that you are no longer in a group.
[Joe] Peter, your arrogance is astounding. I am still in a group MOQ_discuss. I thank you for your sentiment. I grew up in a family of 14 children. I probably will always find a group. [Peter] Sorry, but I don't see the musical scale as an analogue for evolution. I don't think you'll find any mention of octaves in Darwin's writings. As a singer you obviously have a strong relationship and a dynamic involvement with the musical scale and I hope that brings you joy. Some of the Gurdjieff and de Hartmann music is very powerful an can still make me feel very emotional but now tinged with many bad memories. Still, though I think the musical scale is a subtle and versatile model for musical development but has little or no application to anything outside of music. [Joe] Until you have better control over your opinions, I am not really interested in your opinion of my comments. [Peter] I have no idea what you mean by fooling once or twice. Try not to gullible, try to reasonable; try and try again but not in the same way. [Joe] I felt the malice of your criticism of my behavior though I felt it was well-intentioned on your part. Your echoing of my acceptance of ³gullibility² as a negative is another slam. Please stop! Does that explain fooling twice? [Peter] Yes, I was wounded by that crowd but the better for seeing through the power players and dropping out. I'm glad you empathis with my feelings of distrust towards them and am now interested to hear why you left them. I took away some useful things from the Gurdjieff groups too but not anything to do with all the numbers and cosmoses baloney. [Joe] I am genuinely sorry that you were hurt! As I said before I live in the area of People¹s Temple with Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Heavens Gate. I have not left what I have learned. The leader retired from teaching. Again Why should you have an opinion? I am not interested. Regards -Peter Joe On 2/27/08 2:04 PM, "Peter Corteen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I'm genuinely relieved to hear that you are no longer in a group. > > Sorry, but I don't see the musical scale as an analogue for evolution. > I don't think you'll find any mention of octaves in Darwin's writings. > As a singer you obviously have a strong relationship and a dynamic > involvement with the musical scale and I hope that brings you joy. > Some of the Gurdjieff and de Hartmann music is very powerful and can > still make me feel very emotional but now tinged with many bad memories. > Still, though I think the musical scale is a subtle and versatile model > for musical development but has little or no application to anything outside > of music. > > I have no idea what you mean by fooling once or twice. > Try not to gullible, try to reasonable; try and try again but not in the same > way. > > Yes, I was wounded by that crowd but the better for seeing through > the power players and dropping out. I'm glad you empathise with my > feelings of distrust towards them and am now interested to hear why you > left them. I took away some useful things from the Gurdjieff groups too > but not anything to do with all the numbers and cosmoses baloney. > > Regards > > -Peter > > On 27/02/2008, 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/
