Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Am I a Pythagorean?

Expand Messages
  • Sawmi
    I recently read a book, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition by Frances A. Yates, U of Chicago Press, 1964. Although I am not particularly interested in
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I recently read a book, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition by
      Frances A. Yates, U of Chicago Press, 1964. Although I am not particularly
      interested in Bruno, the book was interesting to me because it deals with a
      period of time in which the modern view of numbers (mathematics) was
      seriously contending with the hermetic and cabalistic numerological view of
      numbers (which Yates calls "mathesis")

      She compares Robert Fludd's use of numbers with Kepler's (Fludd, 1574-1637,
      was a prominent English Rosicrucian and Paracelsian physicist, astrologer,
      and mystic - while Kepler, 1571-1630, formulated the correct laws of
      planetary motion.)

      "The root of the matter is that "mathesis" or mathematics 'more Hermetico'
      as used by Fludd on harmony means those numerological relationships,
      ultimately based on astrology, running through the three worlds, the
      empyrean, the celestial world, and the elemental world, and which bound
      together the macrocosm and the microcosm. Mathematics in Kepler's sense is
      quantitative measurement, and in his book he is applying it emperically and
      only in the celestial world, and there only to the movement of the planets."
      (p443)

      This despite the fact that Kepler was as much, if not more, immersed in
      Pythagoreanism as Fludd. Kepler's approach went on to develop into the
      triumphant use of numbers/mathematics in modern science, where Fludd's
      gradually became the stuff of historians and occultists.

      It seems pretty obvious that Pythagoras himself viewed numbers more as
      "mathesis," and that this view is shared by a number of people on this
      list. On the other hand, I feel that "mathesis" was a step on the way to
      modern mathematics (mathematics "shaking off the burden of traditonal
      religion" - a process begun by Pythagoras) and that if Pythagoras were alive
      today he would associate himself with modern mathematics and not with
      numerology.

      Pythagoras can claim to be the "father" of both approches, I think, but,
      since I pretty much reject "mathesis" and embrace "mathematics" I wonder if
      this disqualifies me as a "real Pythagorean" or whether I am OK?
    • James McKinnon
      Sawmi, Naturally it will all come down to how you chose to define Pythagorean. If we define a Pythagorean as someone who follows Pythagoras example in the
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Sawmi,

        Naturally it will all come down to how you chose to
        define Pythagorean.

        If we define a Pythagorean as someone who follows
        Pythagoras' example in the pursuit of the Love of
        Wisdom, with the attainment of Wisdom being the goal,
        then anyone engaged in that pursuit could reasonably
        be called a Pythagorean.

        Pythagoras went to every available culture to learn
        their mysteries in the pursuit of his "Love of
        Wisdom."

        If the Golden verses and the biographical accounts of
        Pythagoras' life are at all a reflection of
        Pythagoras' interests then I think that these things
        alone are enough to suggest that he was looking for
        something deeper than a good approach to quantitative
        reasoning.

        Nicomachus of Gerasa was a fairly early Pythagorean
        who wrote a book called, Introduction to Arithmetic.
        I believe that if you read this document it might give
        you an excellent point of reference for answering your
        own question.

        Nicomachus says that Love of Wisdom, or Philosophy, is
        the science and study of things that are. He goes on
        to carefully distinguish between temporal things as
        being things that don't really possess true being and
        eternal and transcendent "things" that do have real
        being, and are what he refers to when he says, "the
        things that truely are."

        So, if you use this definition of Pythagorean, and you
        are engaged in the pursuit of the knowledge and
        understanding of the transcendent and eternal
        following Pythagoras example, then it's reasonable to
        say you're a Pythagorean.

        If you define Pythagorean in some other way, like,
        perhaps, a person who is deeply interested in the
        study of quantitative and qualitative reasoning, and
        this definition describes you. Then you could also
        call yourself a Pythagorean.

        Of course, I perfer the first definition because it
        appears to encompass more of the totality of
        Pythagorean interest. Pythagoras' interests and
        significance appear to be more than just being a
        patron of quantitative and qualitative reasoning. The
        mystical aspect of Pythagorean tradition and thought
        are what render Pythagoras unique, and give the basis
        for using the term Pythagorean.

        If all you're interested in is good math, then it
        might be more appropriate to call yourself a
        Keplerian.

        Salus,

        James


        --- Sawmi <sawmi@...> wrote:

        > I recently read a book, Giordano Bruno and the
        > Hermetic Tradition by
        > Frances A. Yates, U of Chicago Press, 1964.
        > Although I am not particularly
        > interested in Bruno, the book was interesting to me
        > because it deals with a
        > period of time in which the modern view of numbers
        > (mathematics) was
        > seriously contending with the hermetic and
        > cabalistic numerological view of
        > numbers (which Yates calls "mathesis")
        >
        > She compares Robert Fludd's use of numbers with
        > Kepler's (Fludd, 1574-1637,
        > was a prominent English Rosicrucian and Paracelsian
        > physicist, astrologer,
        > and mystic - while Kepler, 1571-1630, formulated the
        > correct laws of
        > planetary motion.)
        >
        > "The root of the matter is that "mathesis" or
        > mathematics 'more Hermetico'
        > as used by Fludd on harmony means those
        > numerological relationships,
        > ultimately based on astrology, running through the
        > three worlds, the
        > empyrean, the celestial world, and the elemental
        > world, and which bound
        > together the macrocosm and the microcosm.
        > Mathematics in Kepler's sense is
        > quantitative measurement, and in his book he is
        > applying it emperically and
        > only in the celestial world, and there only to the
        > movement of the planets."
        > (p443)
        >
        > This despite the fact that Kepler was as much, if
        > not more, immersed in
        > Pythagoreanism as Fludd. Kepler's approach went on
        > to develop into the
        > triumphant use of numbers/mathematics in modern
        > science, where Fludd's
        > gradually became the stuff of historians and
        > occultists.
        >
        > It seems pretty obvious that Pythagoras himself
        > viewed numbers more as
        > "mathesis," and that this view is shared by a
        > number of people on this
        > list. On the other hand, I feel that "mathesis" was
        > a step on the way to
        > modern mathematics (mathematics "shaking off the
        > burden of traditonal
        > religion" - a process begun by Pythagoras) and that
        > if Pythagoras were alive
        > today he would associate himself with modern
        > mathematics and not with
        > numerology.
        >
        > Pythagoras can claim to be the "father" of both
        > approches, I think, but,
        > since I pretty much reject "mathesis" and embrace
        > "mathematics" I wonder if
        > this disqualifies me as a "real Pythagorean" or
        > whether I am OK?
        >
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • michael michael
        I think that the received wisdom about Pythagoras et al. involves some misunderstanding about the ancient s views about number (mathematics). As a consequence
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 14, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I think that the received wisdom about Pythagoras et
          al. involves some misunderstanding about the ancient's
          views about number (mathematics). As a consequence it
          seems to me that the distinction between Kepler's (and
          the moderns') viewpoint and Pythagoras' (and the
          ancients') viewpoint is spurious. By and large our
          modern knowledge is a recovered knowledge; a
          hard-fought for recovery of a science that is age-old.
          In the spirit of redressing the balance, here are some
          brief observations about number as the ancients'
          understood the issue, in my view.
          By way of explanation; I live in Australia where we
          are fortunate to have numerous buildings designed in
          the early 1800s by a most remarkable architect by the
          name of Francis Howard Greenway. His surviving built
          work is now part of Australia's National Estate.
          These insights come from a study of the architecture
          of Francis Howard Greenway who was a parctitioner of
          the ancient art of architecture. His architectural
          manifesto is expressed in an Obelisk which still
          stands in Sydney as the principal measuring point for
          distances in Australia.
          NUMBER
          1. There are three only (one-ly) numbers in ancient
          thinking. The others are ‘counters’, as sub-sets of
          these three.
          2. Numbers as counters arise from observation of the
          relationships between the sothic year and the sidereal
          year.
          3. The ordered sequence of numbers as counters, why 5
          is followed by 6 and preceded by 4 etc, is determined
          by Euler’s Number, e.
          4. The ordered relationship between numbers,
          determined by e, is based on the relationship of a
          given number to its square or shadow. This
          relationship in turn provides the basis for
          logarithms.
          5. Number is always rational; i.e. any given number
          always stands as a ratio; in a relationship with its
          square.
          6. Number is already square in ancient thinking; as
          well as rational; so 2 is really the ratio 2 to 2nd
          power : 2 to 1st power. Its square is therefore the
          ratio 2 to 4th power : 2 to 3rd power. The
          relationship is 4-dimensional to 3-dimensional.
          (sorry! can't do superscripts here)
          7. There is a moving point relationship between
          numbers and their squares. Numbers advance and
          regress in arithmetic progression whereas their
          squares advance and regress in geometric progression.
          Logarithms express this moving point relationship.
          8. The relationship between numbers and their squares
          is presented in the geometry of conic sections; and in
          Francis Howard Greenway’s Obelisk design.
          9. There is a fundamental discrepancy between the sum
          of whole numbers and the sum of reciprocal numbers.
          This truth is expressed for the egyptians by the eye
          of Horus; for the mesopotamians by sin; for the greeks
          by the comma of Pythagoras.
          10. That discrepancy is expressed in mathematics as
          the Euler-Mascheroni Constant, C or ?: 0.5772156649.
          For the egyptians the discrepancy is one finger of the
          80 finger subdivision of 100 cubits of time: 46.169…m
          ÷ 80 = 0.5771169…m.
          11. The discrepancy is a gnomon; a ±1 feature.
          12. The feature ±1 is a gnomon, literally in greek it
          means ‘a pointer on a dial’; it functions in
          calculations as ‘a bit stuck on’ or ‘a bit cut off’.
          What it points to is ‘another realm beyond’;
          ‘something of a different order’.
          13. At its most basic, the gnomon points to the void
          as the realm beyond the 3-D world and at the heart of
          matter.
          So, perhaps, more correctly, there are 3±1 numbers;
          or, equally, 1±3 (cf. Plutarch on the E of Delphi).
          14. The value of Euler’s Number, e, embraces the
          notion of gnomon in its form. The calculated value of
          e, given these days as 2.7182818…, is properly
          1.7182818 +1. The sum of the combinations to get the
          ordered sequence of natural numbers is 1.7182818…; or
          e -1.
          15. Isaac Newton worked out the value of e by a
          factorial series, resulting in 1.7182818… adding the
          controversial factorial 1/0 to get 2.7182818…
          16. The expression 1/0 is the common integral of
          modern mathematical calculus: 1/x.
          17. In the ancient world the expression 1/0 presents
          the ratio between being and nothingness; between atum
          and nun in egyptian cosmogony; between atom and void
          in Democritus; between whitelight radiation and
          blackbody radiation in Francis Howard Greenway’s
          interpretation.
          18. The ancient theory underlying the expression 1/0
          is the fundamental principle depicted in Francis
          Howard Greenway’s Obelisk in Macquarie Place, Sydney.
          19. The Obelisk’s presentation of the expression 1/0
          summarizes the geometry of conic sections, depicting
          the progression of whole numbers and the regression of
          reciprocal numbers.
          20. In this respect the Obelisk gives flesh to the
          pythagorean doctrine of emanation and recession,
          symbolized in the letter Y.
          21. The Obelisk presents the celestial realm of number
          in conjunction with the underworld of reciprocals
          22. We inhabit the netherworld; the neither world;
          neither the celestial world nor the underworld. Our
          world stands as and at the point of conjunction of the
          two worlds; the one 4-dimensional and the other
          3-dimensional (cf. hyperbola).
          23. Whole or integer numbers are 4-dimensional.
          24. Reciprocal numbers are 3-dimensional.
          25. Numbers and their reciprocals are to be understood
          within the context of the geometry of conic sections.
          26. The geometry of conic sections is said to be a
          triumph of greek mathematics. However, the issues
          were well understood long before by the egyptians.

          In other words, the central insights of modern
          mathematics are age-old. It is up to us to bring the
          ancient and the modern viewpoints back into
          conjunction.

          --- Sawmi <sawmi@...> wrote:


          ---------------------------------
          I recently read a book, Giordano Bruno and the
          Hermetic Tradition by
          Frances A. Yates, U of Chicago Press, 1964. Although
          I am not particularly
          interested in Bruno, the book was interesting to me
          because it deals with a
          period of time in which the modern view of numbers
          (mathematics) was
          seriously contending with the hermetic and cabalistic
          numerological view of
          numbers (which Yates calls "mathesis")

          She compares Robert Fludd's use of numbers with
          Kepler's (Fludd, 1574-1637,
          was a prominent English Rosicrucian and Paracelsian
          physicist, astrologer,
          and mystic - while Kepler, 1571-1630, formulated the
          correct laws of
          planetary motion.)

          "The root of the matter is that "mathesis" or
          mathematics 'more Hermetico'
          as used by Fludd on harmony means those numerological
          relationships,
          ultimately based on astrology, running through the
          three worlds, the
          empyrean, the celestial world, and the elemental
          world, and which bound
          together the macrocosm and the microcosm. Mathematics
          in Kepler's sense is
          quantitative measurement, and in his book he is
          applying it emperically and
          only in the celestial world, and there only to the
          movement of the planets."
          (p443)

          This despite the fact that Kepler was as much, if not
          more, immersed in
          Pythagoreanism as Fludd. Kepler's approach went on to
          develop into the
          triumphant use of numbers/mathematics in modern
          science, where Fludd's
          gradually became the stuff of historians and
          occultists.

          It seems pretty obvious that Pythagoras himself viewed
          numbers more as
          "mathesis," and that this view is shared by a number
          of people on this
          list. On the other hand, I feel that "mathesis" was a
          step on the way to
          modern mathematics (mathematics "shaking off the
          burden of traditonal
          religion" - a process begun by Pythagoras) and that if
          Pythagoras were alive
          today he would associate himself with modern
          mathematics and not with
          numerology.

          Pythagoras can claim to be the "father" of both
          approches, I think, but,
          since I pretty much reject "mathesis" and embrace
          "mathematics" I wonder if
          this disqualifies me as a "real Pythagorean" or
          whether I am OK?




          But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,Invoke
          these Gods with fervour, that whose aid,Thy work
          begun, alone can terminate. Instructed by them,naught
          shall then deceive thee: Of diverse beings thou shalt
          sound the essence; And thou shalt know the principle
          and end of All.




          SPONSORED LINKS
          Beyond
          belief Self
          actualization

          ---------------------------------
          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


          Visit your group "Pythagorean-L" on the web.

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          Pythagorean-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
          Terms of Service.


          ---------------------------------






          ____________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Find a local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search
          http://au.local.yahoo.com
        • jensav55
          I think that one may dispute many particular theses of particular Pythagorean thinkers in antiquity and still be a Pythagorean if one ascribes to the following
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 19, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I think that one may dispute many particular theses of particular Pythagorean thinkers in
            antiquity and still be a Pythagorean if one ascribes to the following basic principles:

            -- That in some primary and fundamental sense, the substance of the universe is number.

            -- That number has an inherent qualitative dimension, and is not merely quantitative.

            -- That the qualitative dimension of number is responsible in some way for the qualities
            instantiated by everything else.


            Edward Butler
          • a b
            Can you please elaborate on what a qualitative dimension of number is ? Thanks, George ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!?
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 19, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Can you please elaborate on what a qualitative
              dimension of number is ?

              Thanks,

              George

              --- jensav55 <epb223@...> wrote:

              > I think that one may dispute many particular theses
              > of particular Pythagorean thinkers in
              > antiquity and still be a Pythagorean if one ascribes
              > to the following basic principles:
              >
              > -- That in some primary and fundamental sense, the
              > substance of the universe is number.
              >
              > -- That number has an inherent qualitative
              > dimension, and is not merely quantitative.
              >
              > -- That the qualitative dimension of number is
              > responsible in some way for the qualities
              > instantiated by everything else.
              >
              >
              > Edward Butler
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • jensav55
              ... The Pythagoreans believed that phenomena of all kinds, whether natural, intellectual, ethical or aesthetic, could be meaningfully analyzed according to
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 20, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com, a b <ath98xyz@y...> wrote:
                >
                > Can you please elaborate on what a qualitative
                > dimension of number is ?

                The Pythagoreans believed that phenomena of all kinds, whether natural, intellectual,
                ethical or aesthetic, could be meaningfully analyzed according to number, and the
                qualities manifested in these domains, rather than being culturally or subjectively
                determined, were objective qualities possessed by numbers themselves that caused similar
                qualities to emerge in diverse spheres, expressing their common origin.

                A person today might legitimately differ on the particular qualitative analyses offered by
                the ancient Pythagoreans -- for instance, that there is some innate relationship between
                the concept of justice and the hebdomad -- or one might feel that the Pythagoreans move
                from mathematical concepts to anthropomorphic concepts too quickly, without enough
                intervening steps -- but if one shares in the basic belief that number does have a
                qualitative dimension which manifests itself somehow in these diverse orders of being,
                and allows an extension of mathematical reasoning somehow into these realms, then one
                may validly regard oneself as a Pythagorean nevertheless, I would say.


                Edward Butler
              • michael michael
                As Edward says, all substance is number. For Pythagoras all substance is one. The original and ultimate unit expresses and contains all that is. The unity
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 20, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  As Edward says, all substance is number. For
                  Pythagoras all substance is one. The original and
                  ultimate unit expresses and contains all that is. The
                  unity of all substance can be depicted in a variety of
                  ways, not just as the arabic numbers. A circle; a
                  square; or a stroke; or the arabic number 1; all
                  equally express the unit.

                  The Pythagorean image of Unity, Duality, Harmony
                  depicts the self-expression of the one. This is what
                  pythagorean emanation is about. The progression is
                  from one to two to three. Two is the reflection of
                  one; whereas three is their harmonious unity.
                  Everything is summed up in this progression or
                  emanation of the one. The progression one - two -
                  three is sufficient and complete.
                  This is why there are strictly just three numbers in
                  ancient thinking: the triune expression of the one.

                  There is more to this than mere counting. Counting
                  implies the notion of quantity. Pythagorean number
                  entails something more than mere counting. Quality is
                  involved. The literal sense of the word number is
                  'nimble'; quite different from the 'numb' quality that
                  counters have. So perhaps we need to distinguish
                  numbers-as-counters from number itself. Number sums
                  up and expresses everything about substance; much more
                  than its numerical quantity.

                  It is important to realize that pythagorean thinking
                  is not dualistic. It is unitary. The ten pythagorean
                  categories listed by Aristotle, for instance, are not
                  opposites. They are aspects of the one. The one is
                  both unlimited and limited; both male and female; odd
                  and even; etc. Similarly, quality and quantity are
                  not opposites; they are complementary aspects of the
                  one.

                  Complementing the emanation or progression one - two -
                  three, is the regression, returning to the one. It is
                  this return to the one that reciprocal numbers are all
                  about. There is a real qualitative difference between
                  numbers and their reciprocals. Each needs to be
                  considered relative to the other if either is to be
                  understood properly.

                  Does this help?

                  Michael.

                  --- a b <ath98xyz@...> wrote:


                  ---------------------------------
                  Can you please elaborate on what a qualitative
                  dimension of number is ?

                  Thanks,

                  George

                  --- jensav55 <epb223@...> wrote:

                  > I think that one may dispute many particular theses
                  > of particular Pythagorean thinkers in
                  > antiquity and still be a Pythagorean if one ascribes
                  > to the following basic principles:
                  >
                  > -- That in some primary and fundamental sense, the
                  > substance of the universe is number.
                  >
                  > -- That number has an inherent qualitative
                  > dimension, and is not merely quantitative.
                  >
                  > -- That the qualitative dimension of number is
                  > responsible in some way for the qualities
                  > instantiated by everything else.
                  >
                  >
                  > Edward Butler
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                  protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com




                  But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,Invoke
                  these Gods with fervour, that whose aid,Thy work
                  begun, alone can terminate. Instructed by them,naught
                  shall then deceive thee: Of diverse beings thou shalt
                  sound the essence; And thou shalt know the principle
                  and end of All.




                  SPONSORED LINKS
                  Beyond
                  belief Self
                  actualization

                  ---------------------------------
                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                  Visit your group "Pythagorean-L" on the web.

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  Pythagorean-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                  Terms of Service.


                  ---------------------------------






                  ____________________________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! News: Get the latest news via video today!
                  http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/
                • Larry Rafey
                  I was going to jump in a bit earlier but it seems that Michael has been most informative concerning the matter. However, I should like to add a few more ideas
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 22, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I was going to jump in a bit earlier but it seems that Michael has been
                    most informative concerning the matter. However, I should like to add a few
                    more ideas to the mix, if I may.
                    Number and quantity are subsets of pattern. It is true that some numbers
                    are the product of counting, while quantities are the product of
                    measurement. Numbers generally display discontinuity between integers and
                    may therefore display greater accuracy and may therefore be considered
                    digitally computative, while quantity (e.g.., the 'few' or the 'many') can
                    only be approximate, probabilistic and therefore, analogically computative.
                    And there is the gestalt number, in which a specific number of items may be
                    noted in a single glance (rather than as products of counting).
                    Pattern is generated via a ratio between quantities, and patterns may be
                    altered quite suddenly and unpredictably (and, at times, divergently) as a
                    product of a single, instantaneous alteration in a quantity.
                    In Biology, one will discover many fixed patterns (such as the number of
                    petals on a particular flower) and these appear to be composed of (and
                    reserved for) small numbers, while pattern variation will be found among the
                    larger quantities (such as the number of stamens associated with a
                    particular flower) and each is controlled by different processes. Such
                    regularities appear to be universal (as Pythagoras discovered with
                    harmonics) and seem to be responsible for the generative order we find in
                    our Cosmos.
                    All that having been said, I would caution that we must take care not to
                    mistake the number for the object or event !! Mathematics is one of several
                    forms of abstract expression that is used to illuminate the behavior and
                    relationship between objects and events. But just as the word "dog" is NOT a
                    dog, an object is NOT the number. So it should be said of science that every
                    cosmological theory should be accompanied by the disclaimer, "...this is NOT
                    the Cosmos!..."
                    Number makes possible extreme precision and coherence and, in conjunction
                    with other abstractions such as language, it helps to extend our grasp of
                    reality but it is not capable of defining all the characteristics of an
                    object or event. (Yes. In fact it is more often used to generalize than to
                    specify .. which, in fact, is what distinguished dear Pythagoras from his
                    philosophical and mathematical antecedents and contemporaries).
                    We know that reality possesses an objective existence independent of our
                    senses. We know this because, each time we take a look, we discover
                    something we never before encountered or anticipated. Reality never fails to
                    demonstrate new facets of its 'self,' facets that did not originate in our
                    thought.
                    Mathematics does originate in our thought (within the confines of our
                    nervous system)and we may use it reliably (but within limits) to describe
                    our perceptions; to provide at least one important aspect of the overall map
                    (and maps, as you might know, are characterized by their occasional
                    imprecision, subjectivity and alterability).
                    It is neither number nor quantity, but pattern that appears to be the true
                    progenitor, so to speak, of Cosmic order. We must focus our attention on the
                    changes, connections and interactions between such elucidated patterns if we
                    intend to transcend the current fragmentation so prevalent in the domain of
                    modern Science and to further attain a valid understanding of the behavior
                    of the Cosmic Process.
                    LD Rafey







                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "jensav55" <epb223@...>
                    To: <Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:31 PM
                    Subject: [Pythagorean-L] Re: Am I a Pythagorean?


                    > I think that one may dispute many particular theses of particular
                    Pythagorean thinkers in
                    > antiquity and still be a Pythagorean if one ascribes to the following
                    basic principles:
                    >
                    > -- That in some primary and fundamental sense, the substance of the
                    universe is number.
                    >
                    > -- That number has an inherent qualitative dimension, and is not merely
                    quantitative.
                    >
                    > -- That the qualitative dimension of number is responsible in some way for
                    the qualities
                    > instantiated by everything else.
                    >
                    >
                    > Edward Butler
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,Invoke these Gods with
                    fervour, that whose aid,Thy work begun, alone can terminate. Instructed by
                    them,naught shall then deceive thee: Of diverse beings thou shalt sound the
                    essence; And thou shalt know the principle and end of All.
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • a b
                    Thank you Edward and Michael for your answers. They were mostly helpful. Michael, Just a few comments on the following parapraph. ... Actually all the
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 23, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thank you Edward and Michael for your answers. They
                      were mostly helpful.

                      Michael,

                      Just a few comments on the following parapraph.


                      > It is important to realize that pythagorean thinking
                      > is not dualistic. It is unitary. The ten
                      > pythagorean
                      > categories listed by Aristotle, for instance, are
                      > not
                      > opposites. They are aspects of the one. The one is
                      > both unlimited and limited; both male and female;
                      > odd
                      > and even; etc. Similarly, quality and quantity are
                      > not opposites; they are complementary aspects of the
                      > one.
                      >
                      >


                      Actually all the Orpheopythagorean stream starting
                      from Orpheus and going down through Pythagoras,
                      Socrates, Plato and Plato’s successors ( meaning the
                      heads of the Platonic Academy ) up to Damascius
                      supports the dualistic concept. There were two
                      variants of this, Democritus and Parmenides who were
                      followers of the monistic concept and who, of course,
                      are not included in the Orpheopythagorean stream.

                      By the word One, the Pythagoreans meant the “arritos
                      arche”(I do not know the English equivalent for that)
                      of Orpheus, the substance of which is unknown to
                      humans and it was considered theologically an insult
                      to deal with.


                      What we know is that, from this “arritos arche”
                      appeared two substances, earth and water as they were
                      called by Orpheus. Earth was the first to
                      appear(please see P.S).These two substances were given
                      various names, some of these are those that were
                      quoted by Aristotle. What is concluded from our
                      scripts, is that the earth denotes what modern
                      Physics call a sub-sub-atomic particle and water
                      denotes Aether.
                      That means that everything in our world, visible or
                      invisible, is consisted of these two substances.
                      Democritus and Leucippus accepted only Earth as a
                      cosmogonical substance ( they called it Atoms ) and
                      Parmenides accepted only Aether ( he called it
                      “On”=Being).
                      Pythagoreans called the Aether(water) by the word
                      “Monad” and the Earth by the word “Aoristos Dyas”.
                      All these names which were given to these two
                      substances reflect their properties. For example to
                      Aether it was given the name Monad as it remains the
                      same everywhere in the Universe and it can’t be
                      distinguished in parts whereas Earth is called
                      “Aoristos Dyas” as its quanity cannot be defined
                      (Aoristos) and it exists in parts (Dyas meaning Two,
                      so being at least two it is denoted that it exists in
                      multiple parts). The Platonists used for Aether the
                      terms “ameristos ousia” (not splitted substance) or
                      "syneches ousia" (continuous substance) and “meristi
                      ousia” for Earth (splitted substance).


                      One of the other terms used for these two cosmogonic
                      substances were Odd and Even. Odd for Aether amd Even
                      for Earth.
                      Pythagoreans considered Odd numbers to denote Aether
                      and Even numbers to denote Earth.
                      Cosmogony, Theogony and Psychogony, are explained by
                      the continuous evolvement of both these cosmogonical
                      substances to higher qualititative evolutionary
                      levels.
                      Hence the series of odd numbers is actually a
                      qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Aether
                      whereas the series of even numbers is actually a
                      qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Earth.


                      Regards,

                      George

                      P.S. Please note that the “arritos arche” is not what
                      mistakenly is called Chaos. Chaos is another name of
                      Earth’s first appearance and it is the first
                      substance that came out (and inside ) the “arritos
                      arche”. Hesiod says that “At first Chaos was born”.
                      Birth(Genesis) as Proclus tells us in his Comments in
                      Timeaus, means that something is going from the
                      undisclosed status to a disclosed one. Proclus also,
                      in his Comments in Cratylus (115), explains this part
                      of Cosmogony.

                      Pythagoreans called Earth “tolma” (meaning
                      daring-dorian variance of “tolmi”) because it was the
                      first of the two substances that dared to appear from
                      the “arritos arche”.


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    • michael michael
                      George I am going to stick to my guns. It is important to realize that pythagorean thinking is not dualistic. It is unitary. The one is indeed arritos
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 24, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        George
                        I am going to stick to my guns.
                        "It is important to realize that pythagorean thinking
                        is not dualistic. It is unitary."

                        The one is indeed arritos arche. Arche is 'the first
                        time'; 'beginning' or 'origin'. Arche is that which
                        is structured or re-memebered in 'architecture'. And
                        arritos is 'unspoken', 'hidden'. 'mysterious'. In
                        this respect the one is akin to the hebrew Yahweh
                        whose name is scriptable but inexpressible; not
                        spoken. Pythagoras maintains the same status for the
                        centrepiece of the ancient musical scale: the note D,
                        the divine inexpressible D. D is the node or point of
                        rest around which the rest of the scale is structured;
                        and is silent. So it is with the rest of the physical
                        world: it is structured around the divine
                        inexpressible unit.

                        The structuring of the musical scale guides us in the
                        interpretation of the structuring of the physical
                        world. The ancient musical scale is structured around
                        D as either an expression of multiples of two or of
                        multiples of three. Each is equally an expression or
                        re-presentation of the one.

                        This is the context within which the pythagorean
                        categories come into play. Odd and even refer to
                        three and two. The distinction is not between one and
                        two; such that one is odd and two is even. No; one is
                        both odd and even. All of the categories apply
                        equally to the one. All substance is one. The
                        differentiation of substance occurs with two and
                        three, manifest 'earthily' as four, which is the twin
                        of two. Substance is distinguished, as is the musical
                        scale, insofar as it is the expression of either two
                        or three.

                        The point emerges likewise in the context of the
                        categories male and female, as co-relatives of odd and
                        even. The hebrew Yahweh is both male and female.
                        Adam and Eve were created 'in the image of God', 'male
                        and female he created them', as the translation goes.
                        Like Yahweh, Adam and Eve are each both equally male
                        and female, in the image of the one; which subsumes
                        everything to itself.

                        The dualist interpretation is a bastardization; a
                        fundamental misinterpretation of the texts. I grant
                        that it is common; yet it is nonetheless incorrect.
                        It continues to bedevil our science and infect our
                        religions. The inevitable consequence of the dualist
                        approach is authoritarianism. We see too much of it,
                        in our science and in our religions.

                        It seems to me that the greek texts support the
                        unitary interpretation, which overall makes much more
                        consistent sense. Pythagoras was eduacted in Egypt
                        and the greek tradition is quite consistent with the
                        long egyptian tradition. Each can illuminate the
                        other. For example, the orphic earth and water
                        correspond to the egyptian atum and nun. Atum is the
                        primaeval mound, emerging from the waters of Nun.

                        Aether is not immediately identifiable with this
                        water. When 'the waters were divided', then the
                        egyptian Nut or Nuit emerges as the archetype of sky.
                        Aether belongs with the realm of Nut. Nut is the
                        celestial counterpart of watery Nun. Nut is the
                        reciprocal of Nun. There is a distinction to be made.


                        Aether has a paradoxical character; which emerges in
                        the root meanings of the very word itself. Plutarch
                        notes that many in the ancient world equate Aether
                        with light. Aether is not a medium, despite the
                        modern insistence; nor is it a substance. Aether is a
                        relation; a ratio. It is this rational quality the
                        endows Aether with paradox. (Just like light, as
                        modern science has realized.)Aether expresses, or is
                        begotten of, the relationship between Nun and Nut.

                        I have a problem when you say, "That means that
                        everything in our world, visible or
                        invisible, is consisted of these two substances.", by
                        which you mean earth and water. I think that we have
                        to maintain the four elements as the constituents of
                        'everything in our world': water, earth, fire and air.
                        Even Plato's indivisibles, his two constituent
                        triangles, are four, not two; because he is careful to
                        present his indivisibles as half-triangles; to the
                        puzzlement of his commentators. So perhaps the water
                        and earth appearing in the orphic tradition are not
                        the same as the water and earth components of the four
                        elements, but rather refer to the waters of Nun and
                        the emergent 'hill' of Atum. The real world begins
                        with four; the twin of two, and not with two itself.

                        Aether may well be odd and Earth may well be even.
                        However, I still have reservations about your
                        concluding point:
                        "Hence the series of odd numbers is actually a
                        qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Aether
                        whereas the series of even numbers is actually a
                        qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Earth."
                        though I can't comment any further at this point.

                        So; does any of this make sense? or am I barking up
                        the wrong tree?

                        Michael.



                        --- a b <ath98xyz@...> wrote:


                        ---------------------------------


                        Thank you Edward and Michael for your answers. They
                        were mostly helpful.

                        Michael,

                        Just a few comments on the following parapraph.


                        > It is important to realize that pythagorean thinking
                        > is not dualistic. It is unitary. The ten
                        > pythagorean
                        > categories listed by Aristotle, for instance, are
                        > not
                        > opposites. They are aspects of the one. The one is
                        > both unlimited and limited; both male and female;
                        > odd
                        > and even; etc. Similarly, quality and quantity are
                        > not opposites; they are complementary aspects of the
                        > one.
                        >
                        >


                        Actually all the Orpheopythagorean stream starting
                        from Orpheus and going down through Pythagoras,
                        Socrates, Plato and Plato’s successors ( meaning the
                        heads of the Platonic Academy ) up to Damascius
                        supports the dualistic concept. There were two
                        variants of this, Democritus and Parmenides who were
                        followers of the monistic concept and who, of course,
                        are not included in the Orpheopythagorean stream.

                        By the word One, the Pythagoreans meant the “arritos
                        arche”(I do not know the English equivalent for that)
                        of Orpheus, the substance of which is unknown to
                        humans and it was considered theologically an insult
                        to deal with.


                        What we know is that, from this “arritos arche”
                        appeared two substances, earth and water as they were
                        called by Orpheus. Earth was the first to
                        appear(please see P.S).These two substances were given
                        various names, some of these are those that were
                        quoted by Aristotle. What is concluded from our
                        scripts, is that the earth denotes what modern
                        Physics call a sub-sub-atomic particle and water
                        denotes Aether.
                        That means that everything in our world, visible or
                        invisible, is consisted of these two substances.
                        Democritus and Leucippus accepted only Earth as a
                        cosmogonical substance ( they called it Atoms ) and
                        Parmenides accepted only Aether ( he called it
                        “On”=Being).
                        Pythagoreans called the Aether(water) by the word
                        “Monad” and the Earth by the word “Aoristos Dyas”.
                        All these names which were given to these two
                        substances reflect their properties. For example to
                        Aether it was given the name Monad as it remains the
                        same everywhere in the Universe and it can’t be
                        distinguished in parts whereas Earth is called
                        “Aoristos Dyas” as its quanity cannot be defined
                        (Aoristos) and it exists in parts (Dyas meaning Two,
                        so being at least two it is denoted that it exists in
                        multiple parts). The Platonists used for Aether the
                        terms “ameristos ousia” (not splitted substance) or
                        "syneches ousia" (continuous substance) and “meristi
                        ousia” for Earth (splitted substance).


                        One of the other terms used for these two cosmogonic
                        substances were Odd and Even. Odd for Aether amd Even
                        for Earth.
                        Pythagoreans considered Odd numbers to denote Aether
                        and Even numbers to denote Earth.
                        Cosmogony, Theogony and Psychogony, are explained by
                        the continuous evolvement of both these cosmogonical
                        substances to higher qualititative evolutionary
                        levels.
                        Hence the series of odd numbers is actually a
                        qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Aether
                        whereas the series of even numbers is actually a
                        qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Earth.


                        Regards,

                        George

                        P.S. Please note that the “arritos arche” is not what
                        mistakenly is called Chaos. Chaos is another name of
                        Earth’s first appearance and it is the first
                        substance that came out (and inside ) the “arritos
                        arche”. Hesiod says that “At first Chaos was born”.
                        Birth(Genesis) as Proclus tells us in his Comments in
                        Timeaus, means that something is going from the
                        undisclosed status to a disclosed one. Proclus also,
                        in his Comments in Cratylus (115), explains this part
                        of Cosmogony.

                        Pythagoreans called Earth “tolma” (meaning
                        daring-dorian variance of “tolmi”) because it was the
                        first of the two substances that dared to appear from
                        the “arritos arche”.


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                        protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com





                        But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,Invoke
                        these Gods with fervour, that whose aid,Thy work
                        begun, alone can terminate. Instructed by them,naught
                        shall then deceive thee: Of diverse beings thou shalt
                        sound the essence; And thou shalt know the principle
                        and end of All.




                        ---------------------------------
                        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                        Visit your group "Pythagorean-L" on the web.

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        Pythagorean-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                        Terms of Service.


                        ---------------------------------







                        ____________________________________________________
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Never miss an Instant Message - Yahoo! Messenger for SMS
                        http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mweb/index.html
                      • a b
                        Michael, As long as you do not accept the Aether as a substance, then it is clear that we have completely different approaches on this issue. I will comment
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 25, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Michael,

                          As long as you do not accept the Aether as a
                          substance, then it is clear that we have completely
                          different approaches on this issue.

                          I will comment though a few points of your text.

                          > This is the context within which the pythagorean
                          > categories come into play. Odd and even refer to
                          > three and two. The distinction is not between one
                          > and
                          > two; such that one is odd and two is even. No; one
                          > is
                          > both odd and even.

                          Odd and even is clear that refer to monas and aoristos
                          dyas, as I wrote previously and as Aristotles quotes
                          in his work “Meta ta Physica.”
                          As I told before, all these pairs that Aristotle
                          quoted as well as what others have used as terms (
                          Empedocles for example used the terms neikos and
                          filia, Plato used also heteron and tayton, “mi on” and
                          “on”, etc) refer to the two cosmogonical substances
                          and they express their properties. That means, for
                          example that aoristos dyas, apeiron, even, female,
                          heteron, neikos, “mi on” etc are the names for the
                          Orphic earth, each one expressing a different property
                          of it, which actually denotes the sub-atomic particle
                          of Physics.

                          Monas is the arithmetic one and aoristos dyas is the
                          arithmetic two.

                          Maybe there’s a misunderstanding in the meaning of
                          one. “One” (with capital O, “En” in the Pythagorean
                          context ) is the arritos arche but “one” is the fist
                          number, monas in Greek. In the Pythagroean context En
                          and Monas ( both translated to one in English) are
                          completely different things.

                          Trias refer to something else, it is well documented
                          in Greek texts, take for instance Damascius ( De
                          Principis-86.20) :
                          “…eite gar monas kai dyas aoristos kai epi taytais
                          trias, ayth estin I noiti trias, os oi Pythagorioi
                          legousi…”
                          “..because monas and aoristos dyas and from them
                          trias, this is the whole intelligible trias(all three
                          of them that is, monas, aoristos dyas and trias) as
                          Pythagoreans say..”


                          > The dualist interpretation is a bastardization; a
                          > fundamental misinterpretation of the texts. I grant
                          > that it is common; yet it is nonetheless incorrect.
                          > It continues to bedevil our science and infect our
                          > religions. The inevitable consequence of the
                          > dualist
                          > approach is authoritarianism. We see too much of
                          > it,
                          > in our science and in our religions.


                          Pythagoreans and the Orpheopythagorean stream in
                          general, of course didn’t have in mind what the modern
                          religions would say. They just quoted what, how and
                          why the Universe and humans were created. Their
                          doctrine is being verified day by day by modern
                          science. We should look elsewhere to find out who and
                          what bedevils our science.

                          If this contradicts with certain modern religious
                          doctrines, that is because they(modern religions)
                          actually bastardized truth and gave it a form that
                          suited their goals. It is they who actually infected
                          human mind to think in a way completely inconsistent
                          with Nature.

                          Dualism is not an interpetation, it is well
                          documented in Greek texts and it appears more or less
                          in almost all past religions

                          As an example, Timaeus Locrus in his “Peri Physeos”
                          205.5 where he said :
                          “Dyo aitias eimen ton sympanton” “ “Two causes the
                          universes have”.

                          Or Proclus in his Commentary on Plato’s Republic (vol
                          1. 93.5) where he states :
                          “Dyo ton olon arches – eite gar peras kai apeiron,
                          eite monada kai aoriston dyada chri prosagoreyein tas
                          protistas ekeinas ypostaseis.”
                          “Two are the principles of all- peras and apeiron or
                          monas and aoristos dyas should these first substances
                          be called”.

                          > Aether has a paradoxical character; which emerges in
                          > the root meanings of the very word itself. Plutarch
                          > notes that many in the ancient world equate Aether
                          > with light. Aether is not a medium, despite the
                          > modern insistence; nor is it a substance. Aether is
                          > a
                          > relation; a ratio. It is this rational quality the
                          > endows Aether with paradox.

                          Plutacrh is correct by saying this because the word
                          Aether derives from the greek verb “Aetho” which
                          means “I am bright”. But in the text which you
                          quoted, Plutarch says that the fifth kosmos (ouranos
                          in the text ) is called Aether or Light because it
                          refers to Aristotle a couple of lines before (“os
                          oietai kai Aristotelis”=”as also Aristotles thinks”
                          in De Caelo 276 ss).
                          Indeed Aristotles considered Aether as a fifth
                          substance but we all know that actually didn’t
                          understand anything about the Orfeopyhtagorean
                          philosophy that’s why was so reprimander and hostile
                          against it.

                          We have to consider Aether under the Pythagorean
                          context.

                          > Even Plato's indivisibles, his two constituent
                          > triangles, are four, not two; because he is careful
                          > to
                          > present his indivisibles as half-triangles; to the
                          > puzzlement of his commentators. So perhaps the
                          > water
                          > and earth appearing in the orphic tradition are not
                          > the same as the water and earth components of the
                          > four
                          > elements, but rather refer to the waters of Nun and
                          > the emergent 'hill' of Atum. The real world begins
                          > with four; the twin of two, and not with two itself.

                          The concept of triangle which is presented by Plato
                          has to do with Psyche and it is very complicated and
                          premature to deal with now and here , especially given
                          that we have not clarified and agreed on the First
                          Priniples.


                          > I have a problem when you say, "That means that
                          > everything in our world, visible or
                          > invisible, is consisted of these two substances.",
                          > by
                          > which you mean earth and water. I think that we have
                          > to maintain the four elements as the constituents of
                          > 'everything in our world': water, earth, fire and
                          > air.

                          At first we should have clear in our mind that Orphic
                          earth and water do not refer to two of the four
                          elements but they refer to the two cosmogonical
                          substances. Maybe there was a misunderstanding there.
                          Orpheus chosed these two words to make clear the true
                          material nature of these substances. By using these
                          words he also gave a very "handy" description of those
                          substances and how they glue together to form
                          entities, the so-called Orphic egg. Just like earth
                          and water combine and make mud which can mould to
                          create various forms, that's how the two substances
                          made planets, stars etc.


                          What we call water, earth, fire and air are actually
                          atoms and molecules of chemical elements, aren’t they
                          ? These molecules, by havinng tight or lose forces
                          between them, remain in nature in solid, liquid etc
                          form.

                          But all these consist of atoms which in their turn (as
                          modern Physics have proven) consist of sub-atomic
                          particles (quarks, bozones etc –modern science
                          continuously finds a new particle that it considers
                          indivisible). Orpheus called earth that sub-atomic
                          particle which is the not-further divisible particle.
                          Democritus also by the word Atoms refered to that
                          same particle. Please note that the word Atom of
                          Democritus is not what modern Physics call Atom. You
                          should also note that Democritus correctly used a
                          feminin word(!!!) to call his Atoms (“Ai Atomoi” –
                          those(female) who are not divisible firther) being
                          consistent with what Orpheus used to call this
                          particle .( As a general rule, wherever in
                          Philosophical texts and Mythology there are pairs, the
                          one which is expressed with a feminin word(in Greek I
                          mean) denotes the earth and the other which is
                          expressed in masculine denotes Aether.)

                          What modern Pysicists have not accepted yet (although
                          there are among them scientists that accept it) is
                          what is among and around those particles and how
                          these particles are kept together. Orpheus said that
                          what keeps them “glued” is Aether which fills
                          everything in the Universe. Democritus mistakenly said
                          that there is nothing else except Atoms, there’s void
                          (kenon). But even nowadays, the Pysicists dare to
                          accept that there’s something that fills the Universe,
                          which they call Dark Energy or Dark Matter.

                          If we take for example the atom of Hydrogen, we note
                          that it forms molecules which, having lose forces
                          between them, form an aerial compound, But if we “dig
                          into” its Atoms we will see that it consists of poton,
                          netron and electron which consist of sub-atomic
                          particles being “glued” with Aether.

                          That’s why we say that everything in our world ,
                          visible or invisible, is consisted of these two
                          cosmogonic substances, "Earth and Water"(I repeat, not
                          the elements) or "aoristos dyas and monas" or
                          "apeiron and peras" etc meaning Sub-Atomic Particles
                          and Aether.

                          Damascius in his First Principles (De Principiis 378)
                          quotes the following :
                          “..dyo taytas archas ypotithemenos proton, hydor kai
                          gin, taytin men os fysei skedastin, ekeino de os
                          taytis kollitikon te kai synektikon…”
                          “These two prinicples saying first, water and earth,
                          the one(ie earth) being scattered by its Nature , the
                          other(ie water) being the gluing(kollitikon) and
                          joining(synektikon) of the former.”

                          There’s also the following from Empedocles which
                          quotes what earth, water, air and fire has to do with
                          the two cosmogonical substances filia and neikos.
                          (Filia is Aether and Neikos is Earth )

                          “Empedocles o Akragantinos stoicheia tessara, pyr,
                          hydor, ethera, gaian’ aitian de touton filian kai
                          neikos.” ( Plutarch Fragments(Sandbach)- Frg 179.98)

                          “Empedocles Akragantinos four elements, fire, water,
                          ether, earth. Cause of their existence filia and
                          neikos.”

                          Empedocles uses the word ether instead of air because
                          for the substance aether he used the word filia.

                          We could find numerous fragmnets and quotes from the
                          Philosophical texts of the Orpheopythagorean stream
                          that declare more than clear the dualistic approach.

                          Of course by going backwards we will finally come to
                          the arritos arche of which of course we know nothing
                          neither about its composition, nor about its
                          qualities and properties. So we are not authorised to
                          deal with it. We are authorised to deal with what was
                          “born” from it and which are documented in our
                          scripts., that is the two cosmogonical substances.

                          > However, I still have reservations about your
                          > concluding point:
                          > "Hence the series of odd numbers is actually a
                          > qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Aether
                          > whereas the series of even numbers is actually a
                          > qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Earth."
                          > though I can't comment any further at this point.

                          If we accept the point that there are two cosmogonical
                          substances which progress as of the first time they
                          appeared from the arritos arche and their progress
                          lead to the creation of the multiple Universes
                          (Cosmogony), the creation of Psyche (Psychogony) and
                          the creation of the Gods(Theogony) then I think it is
                          more than clear. All these are thoroughly documented
                          in Greek texts whether Philosophical or Mythology.

                          Regards,

                          George


                          --- michael michael <michael3992002@...>
                          wrote:

                          > George
                          > I am going to stick to my guns.
                          > "It is important to realize that pythagorean
                          > thinking
                          > is not dualistic. It is unitary."
                          >
                          > The one is indeed arritos arche. Arche is 'the
                          > first
                          > time'; 'beginning' or 'origin'. Arche is that which
                          > is structured or re-memebered in 'architecture'.
                          > And
                          > arritos is 'unspoken', 'hidden'. 'mysterious'. In
                          > this respect the one is akin to the hebrew Yahweh
                          > whose name is scriptable but inexpressible; not
                          > spoken. Pythagoras maintains the same status for
                          > the
                          > centrepiece of the ancient musical scale: the note
                          > D,
                          > the divine inexpressible D. D is the node or point
                          > of
                          > rest around which the rest of the scale is
                          > structured;
                          > and is silent. So it is with the rest of the
                          > physical
                          > world: it is structured around the divine
                          > inexpressible unit.
                          >
                          > The structuring of the musical scale guides us in
                          > the
                          > interpretation of the structuring of the physical
                          > world. The ancient musical scale is structured
                          > around
                          > D as either an expression of multiples of two or of
                          > multiples of three. Each is equally an expression
                          > or
                          > re-presentation of the one.
                          >
                          > This is the context within which the pythagorean
                          > categories come into play. Odd and even refer to
                          > three and two. The distinction is not between one
                          > and
                          > two; such that one is odd and two is even. No; one
                          > is
                          > both odd and even. All of the categories apply
                          > equally to the one. All substance is one. The
                          > differentiation of substance occurs with two and
                          > three, manifest 'earthily' as four, which is the
                          > twin
                          > of two. Substance is distinguished, as is the
                          > musical
                          > scale, insofar as it is the expression of either two
                          > or three.
                          >
                          > The point emerges likewise in the context of the
                          > categories male and female, as co-relatives of odd
                          > and
                          > even. The hebrew Yahweh is both male and female.
                          > Adam and Eve were created 'in the image of God',
                          > 'male
                          > and female he created them', as the translation
                          > goes.
                          > Like Yahweh, Adam and Eve are each both equally male
                          > and female, in the image of the one; which subsumes
                          > everything to itself.
                          >
                          > The dualist interpretation is a bastardization; a
                          > fundamental misinterpretation of the texts. I grant
                          > that it is common; yet it is nonetheless incorrect.
                          > It continues to bedevil our science and infect our
                          > religions. The inevitable consequence of the
                          > dualist
                          > approach is authoritarianism. We see too much of
                          > it,
                          > in our science and in our religions.
                          >
                          > It seems to me that the greek texts support the
                          > unitary interpretation, which overall makes much
                          > more
                          > consistent sense. Pythagoras was eduacted in Egypt
                          > and the greek tradition is quite consistent with the
                          > long egyptian tradition. Each can illuminate the
                          > other. For example, the orphic earth and water
                          > correspond to the egyptian atum and nun. Atum is
                          > the
                          > primaeval mound, emerging from the waters of Nun.
                          >
                          > Aether is not immediately identifiable with this
                          > water. When 'the waters were divided', then the
                          > egyptian Nut or Nuit emerges as the archetype of
                          > sky.
                          > Aether belongs with the realm of Nut. Nut is the
                          > celestial counterpart of watery Nun. Nut is the
                          > reciprocal of Nun. There is a distinction to be
                          > made.
                          >
                          >
                          > Aether has a paradoxical character; which emerges in
                          > the root meanings of the very word itself. Plutarch
                          > notes that many in the ancient world equate Aether
                          > with light. Aether is not a medium, despite the
                          > modern insistence; nor is it a substance. Aether is
                          > a
                          > relation; a ratio. It is this rational quality the
                          > endows Aether with paradox. (Just like light, as
                          > modern science has realized.)Aether expresses, or is
                          > begotten of, the relationship between Nun and Nut.
                          >
                          > I have a problem when you say, "That means that
                          > everything in our world, visible or
                          > invisible, is consisted of these two substances.",
                          > by
                          > which you mean earth and water. I think that we have
                          > to maintain the four elements as the constituents of
                          > 'everything in our world': water, earth, fire and
                          > air.
                          > Even Plato's indivisibles, his two constituent
                          > triangles, are four, not two; because he is careful
                          > to
                          > present his indivisibles as half-triangles; to the
                          > puzzlement of his commentators. So perhaps the
                          > water
                          > and earth appearing in the orphic tradition are not
                          > the same as the water and earth components of the
                          > four
                          > elements, but rather refer to the waters of Nun and
                          > the emergent 'hill' of Atum. The real world begins
                          > with four; the twin of two, and not with two itself.
                          >
                          > Aether may well be odd and Earth may well be even.
                          > However, I still have reservations about your
                          > concluding point:
                          > "Hence the series of odd numbers is actually a
                          > qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Aether
                          > whereas the series of even numbers is actually a
                          > qualitative series of evolutionary levels of Earth."
                          > though I can't comment any further at this point.
                          >
                          > So; does any of this make sense? or am I barking up
                          > the wrong tree?
                          >
                          > Michael.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- a b <ath98xyz@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > ---------------------------------
                          >
                          >
                          > Thank you Edward and Michael for your answers. They
                          > were mostly helpful.
                          >
                          > Michael,
                          >
                          > Just a few comments on the following parapraph.
                          >
                          >
                          > > It is important to realize that pythagorean
                          > thinking
                          > > is not dualistic. It is unitary. The ten
                          > > pythagorean
                          > > categories listed by Aristotle, for instance, are
                          > > not
                          > > opposites. They are aspects of the one. The one
                          > is
                          > > both unlimited and limited; both male and female;
                          > > odd
                          > > and even; etc. Similarly, quality and quantity
                          > are
                          > > not opposites; they are complementary aspects of
                          > the
                          > > one.
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > Actually all the Orpheopythagorean stream starting
                          > from Orpheus and going down through Pythagoras,
                          > Socrates, Plato and Plato’s successors ( meaning the
                          > heads of the Platonic Academy ) up to Damascius
                          > supports the dualistic concept. There were two
                          > variants of this, Democritus and Parmenides who were
                          > followers of the monistic concept and who, of
                          > course,
                          > are not included in the Orpheopythagorean stream.
                          >
                          > By the word One, the Pythagoreans meant the “arritos
                          > arche”(I do not know the English equivalent for
                          > that)
                          > of Orpheus, the substance of which is unknown to
                          > humans and it was considered theologically an insult
                          > to deal with.
                          >
                          >
                          > What we know is that, from this “arritos arche”
                          > appeared two substances, earth and water as they
                          > were
                          > called by Orpheus. Earth was the first to
                          > appear(please see P.S).These two substances were
                          > given
                          >
                          === message truncated ===


                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com
                        • michael michael
                          Thankyou George. Much food for thought. Thanks for the clarifications. There are other issues that need clarifying too. After which, we will probably be
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 25, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thankyou George. Much food for thought. Thanks for
                            the clarifications. There are other issues that need
                            clarifying too. After which, we will probably be more
                            in agreement. But in the meantime I am still not
                            convinced about dualism.
                            I would like to continue the debate; if you don't
                            mind?
                            However, what about the other members of this forum?
                            Are these issues of interest? Should we continue to
                            debate them here, in the forum, or do it one-to-one?
                            --- a b <ath98xyz@...> wrote:


                            ---------------------------------

                            Michael,

                            As long as you do not accept the Aether as a
                            substance, then it is clear that we have completely
                            different approaches on this issue.

                            I will comment though a few points of your text.

                            > This is the context within which the pythagorean
                            > categories come into play. Odd and even refer to
                            > three and two. The distinction is not between one
                            > and
                            > two; such that one is odd and two is even. No; one
                            > is
                            > both odd and even.

                            Odd and even is clear that refer to monas and aoristos
                            dyas, as I wrote previously and as Aristotles quotes
                            in his work “Meta ta Physica.”
                            As I told before, all these pairs that Aristotle
                            quoted as well as what others have used as terms (
                            Empedocles for example used the terms neikos and
                            filia, Plato used also heteron and tayton, “mi on” and
                            “on”, etc) refer to the two cosmogonical substances
                            and they express their properties. That means, for
                            example that aoristos dyas, apeiron, even, female,
                            heteron, neikos, “mi on” etc are the names for the
                            Orphic earth, each one expressing a different property
                            of it, which actually denotes the sub-atomic particle
                            of Physics.

                            Monas is the arithmetic one and aoristos dyas is the
                            arithmetic two.
                          • michael michael
                            George, I accept that Aether has a glue-like function; but not so much as substance (like a noun) or thing-to-be-manipulated but rather as active (like a
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 26, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              George,
                              I accept that Aether has a glue-like function; but not
                              so much as substance (like a noun) or
                              thing-to-be-manipulated but rather as active (like a
                              verb). This is what I mean by saying that aether is
                              relation or ratio; such that Aether is the active
                              linking, binding, returning, taking-back-to source,
                              tertius or third 'thing' that links the unbounded dyad
                              (aorisatos dyas) and the monad (monas).

                              There is the dynamic of both emanation and return
                              entailed.

                              I am minded here of Kant's distinction between person
                              and thing; whereby 'thing' is "a means to an end";
                              whereas 'person' is "an end in itself".

                              Insofar as monad and unbounded dyad are substance then
                              also aether is substance; but not 'thing'; rather as
                              'person' is substance (ousia). However, the
                              characteristc fundament of aether is relatio or ratio.
                              So I am quite prepared to accept Aether as substance
                              (ousia) and indeed as the same substance (omo-ousia)
                              as monad and unbounded dyad; but not as some distinct
                              and separate thing that can be dealt with
                              independently of monad and unbounded dyad.

                              The three belong together. This is the strength of
                              the ancient egyptian tradition and of that christian
                              tradition stemming from Alexandria espoused by
                              Athenasius. It seems to me that the orphic tradition
                              is the same. The pythagorean image of Unity Duality
                              and Harmony is making the same point. I can't do
                              diagrams here, but the image is that of a circle;
                              next, that circle with two smaller touching circles
                              enclosed; then, that image with a third circle, the
                              same size as the other two smaller circles,
                              overlapping them.

                              In the orphic tradition, the Aether of the Third
                              Logos; "the unitary source both of all substances and
                              energies, the mask of all kosmic phenomena; the great
                              womb of manifested being, the treasure house of all
                              kosmic types, forth from which they flow at the
                              opening of manifestation and back into which they will
                              again be ingathered at the beginning of kosmic
                              pralaya, in consequence the great mother-substance out
                              of which all the hierarchies are built" - this seems
                              to me to be the Aether of which I speak.

                              Now that we have clarified that earth and water are
                              not the earth and water of the four elements, then it
                              is clear to me that what you mean by earth and water
                              in the orphic tradition is the same as Atum and Nun in
                              the egyptian tradition, with earth being the egyptian
                              benben mound upon which all construction is based.
                              All construction (all arche-tecture, all structuring
                              of the first time) is proportional to the dynamic that
                              produced earth or benben in the beginning.

                              The egyptian tradition further distinguishes Geb and
                              Nut or Nuit, as manifestations of Atum and Nun. In
                              the orphic mysteries the cosmic egg is produced of
                              Night; so Nut is the counterpart.

                              (The cosmic egg appears in the egyptian tradition as
                              well as in the orphic tradition; and I suspect that
                              they both have the same meaning. I would like to
                              understand more about the cosmic egg and about 'the
                              great cackler' that appears in the egyptian
                              tradition.)

                              I am glad that you refer to the pythagorean categories
                              listed by Aristotle as pairs; because that is properly
                              their significance; something like twins; rather than
                              opposites. There is something of the irreconcilable
                              about the modern meaning of 'opposites'. I consider
                              that the whole point of the pythagorean categories is
                              that they are twin or complementary expressions of the
                              ONE, and that they link together and return to the
                              ONE.

                              The categories are indeed dyadic. The unbounded dyad,
                              however, is a unit. That is the point of it being
                              unbounded. In that respect the unbounded dyad is also
                              and equally ONE; just as monad is ONE. As the
                              expression or reflection of the ONE, the dyad is not
                              set overagainst the ONE as something foreignly
                              different. Think of it rather as the image of oneself
                              in a mirror: there is not present an 'other' separate
                              and distinct and foreign to oneself. There are not
                              now two of me. The unbounded dyad is still the
                              inexpressible ONE.

                              As the manifestation of the ONE, the unbounded dyad
                              (Atum and Nun) is in turn manifest as Earth and Sky
                              (Geb, and Nut which is the greek ouranos). This is
                              where I put Aether, as the tertia pars, as the 'third
                              thing', as the person-al conjunction of Earth and Sky,
                              of Geb and Nut. Together Earth and Sky are a unit,
                              which is Aether; equally a manifestation of the ONE.

                              The advantage of the egyptian tradition is that there
                              are names ascribed to the sequential manifestations
                              and returnings of the ONE. This enables one to follow
                              the cosmogonic progression and return. I am not
                              sufficiently familiar with the orphic tradition to
                              identify the sequences in that tradition; yet I feel
                              sure that they must be there.

                              Properly, then, it seems that Aether belongs further
                              along in the sequences, binding Earth and Sky
                              (ouranos), rather than binding monad and unbounded
                              dyad. There must be some other word for that
                              relation. Perhaps the sanscrit 'akasa' is a candidate
                              for the ratio of monad and unbounded dyad. Is there a
                              greek equivalent? Would 'harmony', armonia, serve?

                              It is the aspect of Aether / akasa as ratio that makes
                              Aether rational. The aspect of ratio is what
                              underpins mind and, to some extent, soul.

                              We are going to have to tackle Democritus. I think
                              that there has been considerable misinterpretation of
                              the atomists' position; as, indeed, you suggest. The
                              association of 'particle' with the greek atoma is
                              suspect. But, enough for the moment.

                              Michael

                              --- a b <ath98xyz@...> wrote:


                              ---------------------------------

                              Michael,

                              As long as you do not accept the Aether as a
                              substance, then it is clear that we have completely
                              different approaches on this issue.

                              I will comment though a few points of your text.

                              > This is the context within which the pythagorean
                              > categories come into play. Odd and even refer to
                              > three and two. The distinction is not between one
                              > and
                              > two; such that one is odd and two is even. No; one
                              > is
                              > both odd and even.
                            • a b
                              Michael, From what I can see by reading your post, it seems to me that you consider Aether as a property and not as a substance. In the Pythagorean context
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jan 26, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Michael,

                                From what I can see by reading your post, it seems to
                                me that you consider Aether as a property and not as a
                                substance. In the Pythagorean context this is not
                                true, Aether is a substance which has certain
                                properties.

                                > George,
                                > I accept that Aether has a glue-like function; but
                                > not
                                > so much as substance (like a noun) or
                                > thing-to-be-manipulated but rather as active (like a
                                > verb). This is what I mean by saying that aether is
                                > relation or ratio; such that Aether is the active
                                > linking, binding, returning, taking-back-to source,
                                > tertius or third 'thing' that links the unbounded
                                > dyad
                                Ø (aorisatos dyas) and the monad (monas).


                                >
                                > There is the dynamic of both emanation and return
                                > entailed.
                                >
                                > I am minded here of Kant's distinction between
                                > person
                                > and thing; whereby 'thing' is "a means to an end";
                                > whereas 'person' is "an end in itself".
                                >
                                > Insofar as monad and unbounded dyad are substance
                                > then
                                > also aether is substance; but not 'thing'; rather as
                                > 'person' is substance (ousia). However, the
                                > characteristc fundament of aether is relatio or
                                Ø ratio.


                                > So I am quite prepared to accept Aether as
                                > substance
                                > (ousia) and indeed as the same substance (omo-ousia)
                                > as monad and unbounded dyad; but not as some
                                > distinct
                                > and separate thing that can be dealt with
                                > independently of monad and unbounded dyad.
                                >

                                Aether is not a third substance. It is not a separate
                                thing, it is monad. Monad is another name/symbol for
                                Aether, like aoristos dyas is another name/symbol for
                                the sub-atomic particle.

                                > The three belong together. This is the strength of
                                > the ancient egyptian tradition and of that christian
                                > tradition stemming from Alexandria espoused by
                                > Athenasius. It seems to me that the orphic
                                > tradition
                                > is the same. The pythagorean image of Unity Duality
                                > and Harmony is making the same point. I can't do
                                > diagrams here, but the image is that of a circle;
                                > next, that circle with two smaller touching circles
                                > enclosed; then, that image with a third circle, the
                                > same size as the other two smaller circles,
                                > overlapping them.
                                >

                                I will try to give you a rough description of how we
                                should think of arritos arche and the two substances
                                which emerged from it.
                                Let’s imagine that arritos arche was something like
                                ice which had tiny grains of sand trapped in it. It is
                                a very simplified approach and somwehow insulting but
                                it is the only way to get an idea of how this
                                happened.
                                Suddenly, there were spots in this enormous ice that
                                became to melt, here and there, forming something like
                                bubbles inside the ice. Those bubbles consisted of
                                grains and water.
                                Try to imagine that each such bubble is one of the
                                numerous universes that were created. One of these
                                universes is ours that we live in.
                                Now let’s focus on one of these bubbles/universes.
                                At first keep in mind that this bubble is full of
                                water with these tiny grains of sand swimming in it.
                                This water is the Aether and the grains are the
                                sub-atomic particles.
                                From the moment these two substances appeared in that
                                bubble, they BOTH started to vibrate. At the same
                                time, the grains that swam in that water, started to
                                collate forced by the water, just like the little
                                mud-balls that children create in the beach by
                                moulding sand with water. As time passed more and more
                                sub-atomic particles arrived in higher levels of
                                vibration, collated with each other forced and glued
                                by Aether of various levels of vibration too,
                                formating thus bigger and bigger forms having as a
                                consequence the creation of the various celestial
                                bodies. This is how our planet was formed for example.
                                As we can see, in this bubble, there were sub-atomic
                                particles with various levels of vibration as well as
                                various quality levels of Aether.
                                The same process took place in all these
                                bubbles/universes.

                                I do not know if I managed to give you an idea about
                                it, but I think this is a good way to present in a
                                way how this all thing works. Orphic fragmnet 55
                                contains a small part of this description.
                                This fragment says also that Aether moves like a
                                vortex and collates the sub-atomic particles.
                                As we can see , Orpheus has noted the existence of
                                Parallel Universes that modern science begins to
                                accept only lately. And by reading in the Orphic
                                fragment about the Aetheric vortexes, we can easily
                                recall Nasa’s photos showing galaxies that begin to
                                being formed in which we see that those trillions of
                                suns and planets move in vortexes to form the
                                galaxies!


                                We should also keep in mind that those bubbles are
                                continued to be formed!


                                > In the orphic tradition, the Aether of the Third
                                > Logos; "the unitary source both of all substances
                                > and
                                > energies, the mask of all kosmic phenomena; the
                                > great
                                > womb of manifested being, the treasure house of all
                                > kosmic types, forth from which they flow at the
                                > opening of manifestation and back into which they
                                > will
                                > again be ingathered at the beginning of kosmic
                                > pralaya, in consequence the great mother-substance
                                > out
                                > of which all the hierarchies are built" - this seems
                                Ø to me to be the Aether of which I speak.

                                At first I repeat that Aether is not something third
                                because there are only two substances. But in a way
                                you are right in what you describe, as Aether hosts
                                all the Forms that exist ( as Plato presented in his
                                Theory of Forms ) and one of its properties is to give
                                forms to the other substance the sub-atomic particles.
                                That means that when Aether glues a group of
                                sub-atomic particles, it also gives to the final
                                product a form.

                                DNA is supposed to keep biological data of the human
                                body. But it doesn’t keep the form that the hand for
                                example will have. So why does human right hand let’s
                                say, is put in the position it is and oriented the way
                                it is ? Why doesn't, for example, appear on our right
                                cheek ?
                                What about plants ? Plants do not have DNA but a rose
                                has the same form everywhere in our planet! Or even
                                the so-called “flower of the desert” which is a stone
                                which has a form of a rose! There’s no DNA to blame as
                                a culprit for that.

                                >
                                > Now that we have clarified that earth and water are
                                > not the earth and water of the four elements, then
                                > it
                                > is clear to me that what you mean by earth and water
                                > in the orphic tradition is the same as Atum and Nun
                                > in
                                > the egyptian tradition, with earth being the
                                > egyptian
                                > benben mound upon which all construction is based.
                                > All construction (all arche-tecture, all structuring
                                > of the first time) is proportional to the dynamic
                                > that
                                > produced earth or benben in the beginning.
                                >
                                > The egyptian tradition further distinguishes Geb and
                                > Nut or Nuit, as manifestations of Atum and Nun. In
                                > the orphic mysteries the cosmic egg is produced of
                                > Night; so Nut is the counterpart.
                                >
                                > (The cosmic egg appears in the egyptian tradition as
                                > well as in the orphic tradition; and I suspect that
                                > they both have the same meaning. I would like to
                                > understand more about the cosmic egg and about 'the
                                > great cackler' that appears in the egyptian
                                > tradition.)
                                >

                                I can’t comment on that because I have not studied the
                                Egyptian tradition. I will try though to give a
                                correspondence of them below.

                                In Orphic tradition, once a sub-atomic particle is
                                “covered” by a crust of Aether around it,an Orphic egg
                                is formed.

                                > I am glad that you refer to the pythagorean
                                > categories
                                > listed by Aristotle as pairs; because that is
                                > properly
                                > their significance; something like twins; rather
                                > than
                                > opposites. There is something of the irreconcilable
                                > about the modern meaning of 'opposites'. I consider
                                > that the whole point of the pythagorean categories
                                > is
                                > that they are twin or complementary expressions of
                                > the
                                > ONE, and that they link together and return to the
                                > ONE.
                                >

                                Exactly. The items of those pairs are not opposites.
                                They are names of the two cosmogonical substances, the
                                sub-atomic particle and Aether. They are two
                                completely different things. These two things came
                                out of the arritos arche, which in the Pythagorean
                                context is ONE.

                                > The categories are indeed dyadic. The unbounded
                                > dyad,
                                > however, is a unit. That is the point of it being
                                > unbounded. In that respect the unbounded dyad is
                                > also
                                > and equally ONE; just as monad is ONE. As the
                                > expression or reflection of the ONE, the dyad is not
                                > set overagainst the ONE as something foreignly
                                > different. Think of it rather as the image of
                                > oneself
                                > in a mirror: there is not present an 'other'
                                > separate
                                > and distinct and foreign to oneself. There are not
                                > now two of me. The unbounded dyad is still the
                                Ø inexpressible ONE.

                                Watch out. Monad IS NOT ONE. One is the arritos arche
                                from which two things came out, Monad ( which is the
                                Aether ) and Aoristos Dyas ( which is the sub-atomic
                                particle ).
                                >
                                > As the manifestation of the ONE, the unbounded dyad
                                > (Atum and Nun) is in turn manifest as Earth and Sky
                                > (Geb, and Nut which is the greek ouranos). This is
                                > where I put Aether, as the tertia pars, as the
                                > 'third
                                > thing', as the person-al conjunction of Earth and
                                > Sky,
                                > of Geb and Nut. Together Earth and Sky are a unit,
                                > which is Aether; equally a manifestation of the ONE.
                                >
                                > The advantage of the egyptian tradition is that
                                > there
                                > are names ascribed to the sequential manifestations
                                > and returnings of the ONE. This enables one to
                                > follow
                                > the cosmogonic progression and return. I am not
                                > sufficiently familiar with the orphic tradition to
                                > identify the sequences in that tradition; yet I feel
                                Ø sure that they must be there.


                                Your feeling is right. Every sequential manifestation
                                of the TWO cosmogonical substances is given names
                                which we can easily trace in Greek mythology. And as I
                                have noticed earlier, the manifestations of the
                                sub-atomic particles are given FEMININ words whereas
                                the manifetstations of Aether are given MASCULINE
                                words. Keep also in mind that the names they are used,
                                should be studied etymologically, they are not
                                conventional. One can get a lot of information by
                                studying the names. Ancient Greeks said : “Sofia, i
                                ton onomaton episkepsis” meaning “Wisodm is to study
                                the names”.


                                I have not studied the Egyptian tradition but from
                                what you write I can identify Geb as the sub-atomic
                                particle and Nut as Aether. Ouranos in the Greek
                                mythology symbolises Aether! Aether is not a “third
                                thing”, it must be Sky/Nut/Ouranos.

                                Hence I can decypher what you write and propose the
                                following manifestations :

                                Atum –-> Geb – (=sub-atomic particle )
                                Nun –-> Nut – (=Aether )

                                Just like :

                                Orphic earth – Aoristos Dyas – (=sub-atomic particle )
                                Orhic water – Monas – (= Aether )


                                > Properly, then, it seems that Aether belongs further
                                > along in the sequences, binding Earth and Sky
                                > (ouranos), rather than binding monad and unbounded
                                > dyad. There must be some other word for that
                                > relation. Perhaps the sanscrit 'akasa' is a
                                > candidate
                                > for the ratio of monad and unbounded dyad. Is there
                                > a
                                > greek equivalent? Would 'harmony', armonia, serve?
                                >
                                > It is the aspect of Aether / akasa as ratio that
                                > makes
                                > Aether rational. The aspect of ratio is what
                                Ø underpins mind and, to some extent, soul.

                                Akasha is Aether of very high level of
                                vibration/progress, an Aether of highest quality. As
                                an Aether of that quality it has the property of
                                containing all the Forms that can be manifestated. As
                                an Aether it has also the property of having memory
                                and thus it has recorded everything that has happened
                                in the Universe and ( strange enough and not easily to
                                be tackled here ) everything that will happen in the
                                future! Hindus use the term “Akashic Records” to
                                denote this.

                                Sanskrit Astral Light is Aether of lower quality in
                                which are stored info of lower significance, not
                                easily to say more about it here.

                                Those people who have Clairvoyance can see Aether and
                                depending on how intense their ability is, they can
                                see various info. The most habile of them, can even
                                see people’s past lives! Remember that Pythagoras
                                “remembered” some of his past lives”. Or Apollonius of
                                Tyana actually “saw” incidents that happened far
                                away from the place he was. This is not
                                science-fiction, they can be explained by the
                                properties of Aether.
                                Ordinary people cannot see Aether. The fact that they
                                cannot see, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. We
                                can’t see the radio waves but we can listen to news
                                and music if we have a radio. Ordinary people lack a
                                sense which enable them to see Aether.

                                Aether is around us, everything swims into Aether
                                despite the fact that we cannot see it. Even gravity
                                can be explained by the use of Aether.

                                Miracles, para-normal phenomena etc can be easily
                                explained if Aether enters the scene.

                                Mind and Soul could be tackled later, after the First
                                Priniples are clarified.

                                It is more than clear to me that if you distinguish
                                the properties of Aether from the Aether itself as a
                                substance, you will surely come closer to this
                                aproach.


                                Regards,


                                George

                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                http://mail.yahoo.com
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.