Hello Joseph, to continue our dissagreement about the validity of the musical scale as a analogue for evolution:
Joe: > > 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'm familiar with the law of three as Gurdjieff proposed; of course it fits very well with the Christian trinity and I think the affirming, denying and reconciling also fits with the Yang, Yin, to Tao; it may also fit with Ham's Essence and negation to actuality (sorry Ham for what I'm sure you will consider a gross condensation of your theory) but I don't see how it fits with Scott Robert's idea except that his thought has three components too. 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. There is a special effort involved any sincere act of refinement but we don't need to try to fit it with a cosmic law of seven. >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. It seems to me Joe, that your emotion clouds your reason; you want to believe that the law of seven has cosmic significance and the strength of your emotion persuades you that is reason enough; you make connections where none really exist. 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. One strong reason I reject the idea of the law of seven as a template for development or process - the idea being that unless a special effort is made at the two moments of retardation (mi-fa & si-do) in a process then the process deviates from purpose - is that it is impractical and over complicated. We need to pay attention all the way through a process. Secondly, I reject because of the arbitrary nature of these notes. The well-tempered clavier showed that the human ear acclimatises or gets used to music of a certain form. The well-tempered scale is slightly different to the scale illustrated by Ouspensky and Nicoll and yet it seems fine to you and me. On the other hand Chinese (pentatonic) music sounds boring to me. 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. I knew you would put 'do' as the absolute! That is not a celestial structure even though the others in your analogy are. You are a creationist! But my reason tells me that there cannot have been an original cause - otherwise what caused that! The MoQ proposes an evolution of increasing complexity starting with the inorganic but in your proposal the 'ray of creation' is in the opposite direction. (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. It's just fanciful emotional associations displacing rational thinking and reason. 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. I agree that the MoQ leaves the door open for at least a fifth level, but again there is a fundamental difference to the levels you propose - that of where the evolution begins; in the MoQ dynamic quality acts first at the lowest inorganic level whereas in heptaparaparshinok the ray of creation starts with Gurdjieff's 'almighty endlessness'. Sorry it took me so long to reply- -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/
