Hello Joe, ... then perhaps you'll respond to my criticism of your favoured law of seven; if 'do' represents the universe then which celestial structure does 'si' match? -Peter Hi Peter, At an earlier time at MOQ__Discuss, Scott Roberts argued convincingly to me that in a word there are three components for knowledge: 1 What it represents. 2 What it is does not represent, 3 In what medium it is. An example of what I learned from esoteric studies: a law of three is necessary for a ³manifestation². I am an amateur singer and I am familiar with the musical octave in which the value between notes Mi__Fa, and Si__Do is reduced. From experience I realize how difficult it is not to deviate and stay on pitch when singing. I attribute this difficulty to this anomaly of the half step. A special effort is required. >From this experience I am very open to the example of a law of seven for an analogy to a law of ³order² of evolution. One formulation in esoteric literature proposed both of these as laws: a law of three for ³manifestation², a law of seven for ³order and shock². If the shock is not delivered evolution deviates and goes in circles. You ask about the law of seven. I am convinced that you have learned about this formulation of a law of seven from your own studies and you reject it. To each his own. In a descending scale: Do the absolute _(creative shock)_; Si the total universe; La, the Milky Way as a representative of all the Galaxies; Sol, our Sun, as a representative of all the suns in the Milky Way; FA, The planets of our solar system as representatives of all the planets;_(shock)(the asteroid belt?)_ Mi Earth; Re, our Moon.
(Organic life on Earth is suggested for a shock needed for vibrations to pass into Earth, and continue to the Moon). So for our Sun as Do (__) Si (Planets), La, Sol, Fa, Earth, _(Organic life)_Mi (Moon), Re, void. I use of a law of seven, as exemplified in the musical scale, as an analogy for a law of shock and order for evolution. I feel more comfortable answering: Why should evolution stop at four levels? How can you describe the indefinable? This is as much as my memory gives me from 20 years ago. It seems a right analogy for evolution. Joe On 4/14/08 10:43 AM, "Peter Corteen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Joe, > > ... then perhaps you'll respond to my criticism of your favoured law of > seven; if 'do' represents the universe then which celestial structure does > 'si' match? > > -Peter > > On 14/04/2008, Joseph Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> I am one of the others. Good to hear from you! >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> On 4/12/08 3:28 AM, "Peter Corteen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Bo and Matt and others, >>> >>> Matt's definition rings some bells with some thoughts I had: religion is >> old >>> fashioned science, and after Matt, religion is metaphysics. >>> I'm just questioning - not saying it is so - I don't want to push myself >> to >>> clarify that. Matt's definition of metaphysics as a general framework >>> however reduces it from a field of study to just another name for a >> person's >>> momentary mindset, something that changes as that person's moment to >> moment >>> situation changes. >>> >>> I would say that the mindset becomes metaphysics when a person starts to >>> reason about their situation and begins to develop an approach or >> attitude >>> (even the attitude 'no attitude' - Book of Five Rings) they intend to >> carry >>> into their future. >>> >>> Bo, the artifacts left by the dead and those arranged in tombs to >>> commemorate them is a signature of their self-consciousness. The idea >> that >>> their self-consciousness indicated an eternal life manifested >> temporarily in >>> a physical body however, would have been too complicated for them; I >> think >>> the life eternal was invented as a comforting metaphysics only to give >>> reason to the suffering of life and to avoid the apparent futility of >>> living. In the end we can only guess about how our ancestor's thought, >> and >>> today, though conversation with people in the religious mindset is >> available >>> nevertheless it does not seem to clarify our new metaphysics. >>> >>> If Pirsig's four levels are seen as evolving levels of being just as >> some >>> apes may now have intimations of self awareness so we must begin to ask >> what >>> may be the characteristics of a possible fifth level; certainly an >> openness >>> to what Doris Lessing called the substance of 'We' feeling and also, I >>> suggest, a new way of thinking that seeks to re-incorporate the mind >> with >>> the body. >>> >>> -Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/04/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6 Apr 2008 at 15:49, Matt Kundert wrote: >>>> >>>>> My two definitions: >>>> >>>>> 1) Metaphysics is the general framework, or understanding, or set of >>>>> assumptions, that people unconsciously (with various degrees of >>>>> self-consciousness) interpret, or see, or live in the world. As an >>>>> activity, it is the attempt to make the unconscious self-conscious >>>>> (this activity is also known in some circles as "philosophy"). >>>> >>>> Talking to Matt is a safe sport, no disturbing replies. However his >>>> definition (#1) is pretty good, only I can't get it basic enough. >>>> Even Pirsig's "..no-one living in an ordered universe can avoid >>>> metaphysics" should have omitted "ordered" because human >>>> beings invariably order existence - that's their hallmark. Thus >>>> even the old mythologies were metaphysics in this extended >>>> sense. >>>> >>>> An aside): Because only human beings has entered the Q-social >>>> level and a mythology requires language I wonder if not language >>>> and the social level are intimately connected. A chicken & egg >>>> relationship. From now on I use that as my premises. >>>> >>>> It's said that the first registered burial rituals is a sign - not only >> of >>>> a notion of an existence beyond, but of an EXISTENCE at all, but >>>> as sure is it that early humankind didn't invent the beyond as a >>>> comfort against their fear of death, rather that the existence >>>> beyond was what confirmed an existence here. Anyone >>>> understand the the immensity of this point? >>>> >>>> As I see it, MOQ's message is that each static level is the >>>> creation of a reality different from the one before it and the social >>>> level was a shift from biology's non-existential existence (death >>>> no issue as an "idea") to one of eternal existence (death as a >>>> mere transition to another realm) Thus when the 4th level >>>> emerged with its objective outlook that gave death a final "fall >>>> from the rim of existence" quality) social value attained a >>>> "paradise lost" quality for many. >>>> >>>> This I believe was behind Phaedrus' identifying the old Aretê with >>>> Value itself, and his hatred of SOM that destroyed it. In MOQ this >>>> is the social-intellectual transition and my above explains why >>>> intellect looks so "valueless" (to regard intellect this way is wrong >>>> but enough for now). I just wonder why Pirsig so patently refuses >>>> to compare ZAMM with the MOQ and so mysteriously downplays >>>> the SOM. >>>> >>>> Anyway. I also believe this to be behind other attempts to >>>> systematize the upheaval around this time in history it, for >>>> instance Owen Barfield's "Participation Scheme" that fits >>>> uncannily with MOQ's social - intellectual stages and because >>>> Barfield postulates a "resumption of participation" fits with the >>>> MOQ itself, i.e. a return to the holistic "social" view ... although at >>>> a higher plane. >>>> >>>>> 2) Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that attempts to display >>>>> the basic, universal, ahistorical underpinnings of reality (this >>>>> activity is also sometimes known in some circles as "Platonism," and >>>>> in a few circles the acronymic "SOM"). >>>> >>>> This resembles Pirsig's about the MOQ as a mere theory about >>>> the "Quality Reality" that can be divided any way and still be >>>> good. Something I deeply disagree with. >>>> >>>> Bo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/ >> > 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/
