Rumors.Pythagorean?

**tsiouz** · 06-21-2012 02:01 PM

Since some talking happens

PYTHAGOREAN HARMONICS AND THE THEORY OF THE OCTAVE.
(octaves are not relevant to the ones of the modern astrology as uranus is the higher octave of mercury
And harmonics to the ones that modern astrology uses sort of conjuction is the first harmonic and opposition the second
As these teachings are just a bunch of crap that modern astrology uses which is just a form of cancer (not the sign the disease) to any who wants to study astrology).

Now for a start (start comes with something else) everybody heard the phrase god made the world in seven days.
Before people started to tamper with the testaments the word Creator was used.

So creator made the world in seven days.
And maybe since the world god doesen't really needs representation
of words like Creator,allmighty and all that bunch of crap
maybe the word creator has nothing to do immediately with god.

So to people who learned enough to justify the meaning of the word creator the
creator symbolizes something else.

And then is the number seven.
If we connect the dots we can find that for instance
number 8 is representing the infinite
number one the absolute,the unity
number 2 duality
ect.

But what about number seven?
And since the number seven ascosiates with creation(not Complete explanation of the number) investigation should be made.

Let's take the two immediate sences of our perception.
Vision and hearing.

Seven notes we're hearing.
In music notes we have the phenomenon of the octave by seven notes from A to G (do to si) which starts from the note C(do) and finishes with the note B(si).
when the note B is finished sound starts again with note C in higher frequency.
And the ear can recognize octaves from 20hz to 20000hz.
But then a strange thing happens.

A note like C(DO) has an intermediate space called diez in latin or flat i think in english.
This is the symbol #.This point characterizes a note like C# as C and a half.
But as we're going to the notes E(MI) and B(SI) this space doesent exist.
Infact after the note B follows straight the note C.

Seven colors we see.
Million combinations of them but the base is these seven.
now painters say that all the colours are mix of the three yellow green and red(if i remember correctly but it doesen't matter)but this is based on a previous state of evolution not this one.

Now science discovered that below the red exists infrared.
And above violet exists ultraviolet.
And in beetween the third and the fourth colour science finds amazing discoveries
through lasers.

It is time for a brake.
Polarity is a function that expressed from the hermetism and the hermetic scripts.
It shows and expresses the two poles in every function as an absolute.
Good and bad male and female ect. as a polarity based on the absolute.
Nothing in beetween

lets take the sexual for a start.
A primitive organism as a simple multi cell organism experiences sexual as a polarity.
Male attracted to female.That is all.

To mamals and humans sexual developed as a choise based on chemistry.

sentimental.
Some animals use the sentimental only as helpfull for survival or not.
But if somebody owns a dog realizes quickly that his variety of sentiments is amazing.

And here comes the mind.
If we exclude the man from every animal on nature animals brain seem to have a mind
based on reaction and only (this doesen't need a lot of explanation i presume).
And to the man mind's partially (not everybody's to the same extend) realizes options and solutions that vary "from black and white".
So humans have three main centers of function,a dog two and a half.
And evolution seem to start and develop from the nessesity of survival.

Back to the senses.
Senses is the main tool of intelligence.if you take a man and you blind him,deaf him,cut of his sense of touch smell and taste,his mind sentiment and sexual might work but cooperation from the enviroment is cut off so even survival is not possible.
Inner and outer.
So senses it the main tool of evolution a thing not so difficult to understand.

Lets take senses into the octave.
The closest relatives are the mamals.Were sharing 99 of our dna with a pig and 98 with an ape.We are even reproducing in the same way.
But a dog can hear frequencies lower than the human.
And more primitve animals like the snake(which we arent in the same scale ok)
can see infrared.
So in order for the man to survive (when he was in a more primitive state)
developed some senses.Thing which we are unable to recognize.
Some scientists are going to say that they atroph as they were not usefull.

Not lets take this a a potential.
Scientists say that the mind is moving to octaves.not difficult to understand as our senses are moving according to that rhythm.The octave of number seven.
And Every animal is carrying the abilites that gained on its progress to evolution.
Except us.And we'are seem unable to get new ones.

INFACT THE IRONY IS THAT THE THING THAT WAS ONCE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR EVOLUTION KEEPS US STRAINED.

So bad news are on the way.
HUMAN MIND MAILFUNCTIONS.IT JUST BOUNCES BACK AND FOURTH FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP OF THE OCTAVE STRIPPED FROM THE ABILITY TO RECOVER ABILITIES AND MEMORIES FROM HIS START AS EXISTENCE AND UNABLE TO MAKE A PROGRESS AND CHANGE THE PATTERN OF THAT INTO ANOTHER FORM OF EVOLUTION.

And then exist shock points into the octave Thing that exists in our senses and in our body (One in the base of the sexual one in the sentiment and one in the head but locations don't matter).

THESE SHOCK POINTS ARE POINTS OF EXIT FROM THE FORM WE ARE AS HUMANS INTO PROGRESSION.
EVERY FORM OF MEDITATION YOGA OR ESOTERIC TEACHING TRIES TO GUIDE THE MAN OUT OF THE REPEAT OF HIS OWN POLARITY THROUGH HIS MOVEMENT ON THE OCTAVE.

KEY OF THE HUMAN EVOLUTION IS THE "CHANGE" ON THIS PATTERN TO DIRECTIONS OF BEGINNING OF HIS EXISTENCE AND THE OPPOSITE POLE.
CREATOR IS THE SELF AND TO THE SELF AND ONLY LIES THE KEY OF REALIZATION THROUGH THE POINTS THAT BRAKE THE CIRCULATION OF THE PATTERN.

It is no doubt that this pattern creates the fate in a man,who just repeats the pattern that hes blindly follow as his mind is circulating just the same process.

As for the astrologers pythagorean astrology can be learned when the person that studies astrology can recognize the pattern of the map and work with it.

Enjoy.

**Supernova** · 06-21-2012 02:53 PM

And here I thought we would actually be discussing harmonics.

**Mindraker** · 06-21-2012 03:47 PM

Not to dismiss your theory, but this sounds like numerology, in which people look for patterns that don't actually exist in numbers. Probabilities and statistics /do/ exist as analysis of numbers, but, people often go beyond this and attach "religious" meaning to numbers or even the sense of "luck" to numbers, which is false.

Numerology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Sornaensis** · 06-21-2012 03:48 PM

~~What the fuck did I just read.~~

That'll teach me to not check which subform the most recent post listed on the index for Extended Discussion is in.

**shadowofwind** · 06-22-2012 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Supernova

And here I thought we would actually be discussing harmonics.

I'm game....The western system of notes follows from these goals:

1. The ratio between the frequency of any note and the one preceeding it is constant. In other words, they're geometrically spaced.
2. The two smallest whole number ratios, 2/1 and 3/2, are represented as chords (ratio's of note frequencies)

Unfortunately, these two goals are mutually exclusive: '2' requires rational (fractional) spacing, but '1' requires irrational spacing. So always there is disharmony. The system of 12 notes is a good compromise though, without as much disharmony as most other choices. (Five isn't too bad, hence the eastern system. Fifty-three is quite good in terms of capturing all the main harmonics with high accuracy, but of course that comes with a lot of additional notes.)

Why seven notes in a major scale? E is 1.260 times the frequency of C, which is almost 5/4 (though far enough off to sound 'wrong' to a good ear). F is 1.335, not far off of 4/3. G is 1.498, close to 3/2. A is 1.682, not far away from 5/3. Actual tempering may vary slightly, depending on which harmonics are to be optimized at the expense of others. So those are the main harmonics. D and B fall somewhat naturally into the spaces left by the other notes, but don't actually have harmonics in the same key (C major). Altogether they make a collection of seven, though its kind of a kludge.

It appears to me that intelligent people can sometimes become trapped in numerological thinking if they become especially adept at classical math and philosophy early. Where there are difficult to resolve contradictions between those ways of thinking and modern science, the tendency is to go with what is known and loved and reject other ways of looking at things without understanding them deeply. This results in a brilliant person with an impoverished mental toolset, who also can't recognize the limitations of mental toolsets in general. Of course everyone thinks they understand that, any intelligent person knows that the thoughts through which they filter their experience are limited, and qualify what they experience. But its something else to become deeply trained in one area for many years, then again in a completely different area, and experience the difference on that scale. To be able to see how the wondrous, civilization defining systems of thought can become enormous toy-like prisons. So I'd recommend considering study towards a pure math PhD, or at least theoretical physics, to a young person who is really good at this other stuff. Of course this seems like a waste of time at the outset, because it seems like getting lost in minutiae, and doesn't satisfy the way deep psychological stuff does. But in the end it pays off.

**tsiouz** · 06-22-2012 12:52 PM

This is the threory made by pythagoras and explained from peter ouspensky
as a very deep definition and it is not mine.

Maybe just a bit falsy placed because of the language.

**shadowofwind** · 06-22-2012 03:46 PM

If you'd mentioned what you were plagiarizing I wouldn't have bothered to read it. I have Ouspensky's book A New Model of the Universe in my desk. The structure of how he develops and lays out his arguments seems very intelligent, while summarizing and critiquing esteemed physicists of the time with authority. If you skate on the surface it can be convincing. But if you dig into what he's saying and try to make sense of it in a detailed way, there's almost nothing there. It reminds me of a math student I had once who would write down mathematical looking gibberish and think that it must be right, since it looked like math, without understanding that the symbols actually need to mean something. Ouspensky is like that but at a higher level, where he moves the symbols around in what seems like an ordered manner, and apparently thinks that he's describing something 'real' because he has attached compelling and vaguely transcendent feelings to the symbols. My first reaction was no, he must really be describing something real here, and I'm just not able to reach it, because nobody would have the audacity to just make a bunch of stuff up and call it Truth. But now I'm sure that's really what he was doing.

**tsiouz** · 06-22-2012 04:07 PM

One of the most importand student's of gurdjieff
tried to make a story?
Based on the fact of pythagoreans?
Because this is why propably the completion of the seventh year of a person involves change always as a catalyst for the years that follow.
I bet you're realizing that as an empathetic person.

**shadowofwind** · 06-22-2012 06:11 PM

I read Gurdjieff's Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, and saw the Meetings with Remarkable Men movie.

From where I stand, Gurdjieff was a psychically potent sociopath who abusively manipulated his followers for his own gain and sexual gratification.

To some extent I lump Ouspensky in with other quasi-Theosophists like Max Heindel or even Edgar Cayce. Though technically they're not Theosophists, they draw on somewhat the same body of thought, and their outlook is similar in other regards.

Though I am in some regards empathetic, I'm not observant in a way that gives me an opinion about seven year cycles. I'm not informed enough about Pythagoras to have an opinion about him either.

As I have suggested elsewhere, I don't think that ideas about astrology, biorhythms, etc. are generally as clear cut as being 'true' or 'not true'. Not only do such beliefs filter our perceptions, but because of our interrelationship with spirit, they affect actual patterns in hidden ways also. If the objective supernatural element is taken as validation of truth, then we chase ourselves around in circles, because the supernatural responds to our minds also. The same principle applies to premonitions. Often when people are aware of ideas before they read or hear about them they take this as validation of their truth. It proves that they're psychic, but doesn't prove that the ideas are true.

**tsiouz** · 06-22-2012 06:15 PM

Gurdjieff was the sociopath?

**shadowofwind** · 06-22-2012 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by tsiouz

Gurdjieff was the sociopath?

Yeah I'd say that's a fair characterization, even judging from the descriptions of his own admirers. For example

www.gurdjiefffourthway.org/pdf/demands.pdf

The sexual manipulation that's commonly attributed to him fits the profile also.

**tsiouz** · 06-22-2012 06:26 PM

Yep that's the one.
The one hell of a sufi.
And he didn't sexually manipulated them.He just pushed them ahead of their own limits.
The reason that gurdjieff's teaching were not so quickly spreaded
It because his tongue was wooden and im telling you truth is not something pleasant to see.
Apart from the fact that any teacher who had something to say got tons of mud on him through history.
So if so many bad things are been told for a man he cannot be so bad.

**shadowofwind** · 06-22-2012 06:39 PM

Osho, formerly known as Rajneesh, formerly by other names, was another cult leader in a similar mold. He used to have a commune in Oregon near where I grew up. He lived lavishly, with a fleet of Rolls Royces, and his 'ranch' was pretty much a permanent orgy with him at the apex. He left the country and re-branded himself as Osho after too many troubles piled up.

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**tsiouz** · 06-22-2012 06:43 PM

And what is the so big problem with free expression of sexuality.
And who mentioned osho in the first place?

**shadowofwind** · 06-22-2012 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by tsiouz

So if so many bad things are been told for a man he cannot be so bad.

Now that's an axiom that leads to some strange places.

Opposite of the argument that Plato used to condemn Pericles.

**tsiouz** · 06-22-2012 06:45 PM

And?

**shadowofwind** · 06-22-2012 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by tsiouz

And what is the so big problem with free expression of sexuality.
And who mentioned osho in the first place?

The problem is when you use your spiritual magnetism to manipulate people for your own enjoyment without regard for them, and when they suffer as a consequence, you explain that you were just freeing their spirit by tearing down the ego.

I mentioned Osho because his name came up when I was looking for the 4th way link, and also because someone mentioned his Tarot deck in another thread. And if a person wants to understand the predatory guru, he's a good exhibit. Also see Franklin Jones / Adi Da for the same sort of thing.

**shadowofwind** · 06-22-2012 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by tsiouz

And?

And you just made a completely fallacious argument. No point in engaging with that.

**tsiouz** · 06-22-2012 06:52 PM

Yes but if you know the teachings of gurdjieff why you're looking in the net?
And first get that "spiritual magnetism" and decide what to do with it.
And gurdjieff never mentioned tearing down the ego.
Infact what he claimed is that ego is already teared down.
Gurdjieff teachings were speaking for the unity of the ego which you can achieve by cracking the surface of the ego which is just scattered and torned to pieces by the way we function.

**tsiouz** · 06-22-2012 06:53 PM

Ok well there is no point for argument in the first place.

**shadowofwind** · 06-22-2012 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by tsiouz

Yes but if you know the teachings of gurdjieff why you're looking in the net?

You questioned my characterization of him as a sociopath, so I provided a supporting link. Next time I'll know not to take your question at face value.

We're both done then, have a nice day.