On Monday 21 April 2008 1:28 PM Peter writes to Joe:
On 4/21/08 1:28 PM, "Peter Corteen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > Peter > 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. Hello Peter, My understanding of Scott¹s position: APPLE: 1. The word identifies what it represents. 2. It excludes everything else, like a Pomegranate. 3. I¹ll look for one in an apple tree. [Joe] >> 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. [Peter] > 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. [Joe] >> 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. [Peter] > 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. [Joe] We haven¹t communicated that much. The distinction in levels between ³emotion² and ³reason² is an esoteric distinction from a law of three with ³moving² being the third center. Pirsig calls DQ (undefined), SQ (defined). Are you saying right out of the bag that emotion is undefined, and reason is defined? [Joe] >> 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. [Peter] > 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. [Joe] The undefined is really complicated and impractical. Asymmetry is really complicated. The MOQ is PARALYZeD. How do we pay attention all the way through an undefined process? If you want a MECHANICAL description of everything MOQ is not the place to find it. Some aspects are undefined and I suppose arbitrary. I haven¹t listened to Chinese music. [Joe] >> 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. [Peter] > 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. [Joe] Is there a difference between the Conscious and Mechanical, DQ/SQ, the undefined and the defined? Your outrage about the absence of a celestial structure on a MOQ discussion list seems weak. The way up is the way down! If there is a descending evolution, I should be able to climb back as far as I can. I will never reach the Galaxy in my puttmobile. [Joe] >> (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. [Peter] > It's just fanciful emotional associations displacing rational > thinking and reason. [Joe] I suppose the same could be said about discussing the undefined and defined. [Joe] >> 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. [Peter] > 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 [Joe] Thanks! I am happy you replied. The undefined is a son-of-a-bitch! Joe > > 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/ 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/
