[MD] Subjects, objects, and laws

[Ham Priday]

On Monday, 2/25, Joseph Maurer wrote:

> Hi Ham and all.
>
> 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.)
> The numbers refer to laws.  I don¹t know if this schema is taken
> from Pythagoras¹ Harmony of the spheres.  It has been a staple
> in esoteric literature for a long time.

Joe, except for Earth's moon and the sun, what were referred to as "spheres" 
in Pythagoras's time are actually planets, of which Earth is third from the 
sun.  So that applying numbers to them according to some "divine law" is, 
indeed, an esoteric concept more characteristic of  Astrology than Science.

On the other hand, numbers do have validity in acoustical science, because 
they express the frequency relationship between tones in a scale.  Thus, if 
middle C is tuned to 440 Hz, the C an octave above is 880 Hz (double the 
frequency), and the seven notes below it are tuned to approximate equal 
proportioning between them.  I say "approximate", because it is impossible 
to create a chromatic scale in which all the intervals are "justly intoned". 
The deviation from "just" intonation is precisely controlled by tempering, 
which allows music to be transposed between keys without having to retune 
the instrument.  The so-called tempered scale was invented at about the time 
of Bach, who composed a set of preludes and fugues called "The Well Tempered 
Clavier" in each of the 12 keys to demonstrate this principle which has been 
the standard of Western music ever since.

I am persuaded that such intellectual precepts as Harmony, Symmetry, and 
Balance have importance because of man's value-sensibility, not because they 
represent the "divine order" of the universe.  It is man who makes physical 
order out of an amoral universe, just as it is man who makes moral order out 
of a disparate collective society.  The "laws" involved here are human laws, 
and they are not so much concerned with "balancing nature" as they are with 
sanctifying the value of human life.

The law of nature is survival of the fittest, which means that if a 
particular species is ill-suited for its habitat, incapable of fending off 
aggressors or finding food sources, it dies out to make room for other, more 
adaptable species.  Civilized man does not--at least should not--operate 
that way.  Not only do we have the capacity to adapt the environment to our 
needs, we can raise our children to respect the lives of others and educate 
them to deal competently with the adversities of society.  And we establish 
laws by consensus to protect the individual's right to free speech, private 
property, and the religion of his choice.

Individually man is driven by his values, but reason tells him he must 
temper his behavior if he is to live peaceably with his fellow creatures. 
The use of power to control others, historically the strategy of monarchs 
and tyrants, is no longer reasonable or acceptable to civilized people who 
believe in individual freedom.  In my book I call the moral principle 
underlying this behavior "rational self-directed value".

Jose, these are my views on the laws of harmony as applied to music and 
human society.  They represent "where I'm coming from" on the subject of 
morality.  Do you have a major disagreement with anything I've said?

Regards,
Ham