[MD] What is metaphysics to you?

Tue Apr 22 14:21:21 PDT 2008

On Monday 21 April 2008 1:28 PM Peter writes to Joe:

On 4/21/08 1:28 PM, "Peter Corteen" <psigenics at googlemail.com> 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/