F4
This is a load of crap! We have no idea whether the universe or Man has any objective meaning and purpose, but even if we assume it does not that in no way either justifies or makes necessary “spirit killing” or freedom from eros. The eros or desire for wisdom is a pursuit, and, as Plato makes clear in the Symposium, the beloved is always to a greater or lesser extent a product of the imagination of the lover. We desire wisdom but unless one is wise he or she have no knowledge of whether or not there is an objective meaning and purpose, and, if that meaning and purpose exists, what it is remains a matter of the imagination.
If the universe has no meaning or purpose and just a functioning machine, what you see is what you get. Eros doesn’t exist other than as a fantasy and there is no objective conscious direction to be drawn to. There is no wisdom. There can be only a knowledge of mechanics. There is no sense of valuing imagination unless it is a beginning for contemplation into a higher relationship or reality. If this is true it is better just to eliminate anything not directly pertaining to the subjective good of cave life and scientific fact defined by secular experts and enforced by their police..
But you understand nothing of the sort. They are just things you read about. Just ideas you glom onto like Plato’s Form of the Good. Except the two ideas cannot be reconciled with each other without doing damage to both. The Good is not a unity of three essential forces or the first cosmos.
Of course they are reconciled. As a secularist you are not open to how. When I post the Panentheism thread it is one thing I hope to discuss with Seeds; how God is simultaneously one and three. Why does the world have to stop because you refuse to understand it?
This is just another example of you mangling ideas in order to make them fit into your ill-informed view.
I am referring to Pythagoras perception of the diatonic octave and how it is a universal law
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta19.htm
While the early Chinese, Hindus, Persians, Egyptians, Israelites, and Greeks employed both vocal and instrumental music in their religious ceremonials, also to complement their poetry and drama, it remained for Pythagoras to raise the art to its true dignity by demonstrating its mathematical foundation. Although it is said that he himself was not a musician, Pythagoras is now generally credited with the discovery of the diatonic scale. Having first learned the divine theory of music from the priests of the various Mysteries into which he had been accepted, Pythagoras pondered for several years upon the laws governing consonance and dissonance. How he actually solved the problem is unknown, but the following explanation has been invented.
One day while meditating upon the problem of harmony, Pythagoras chanced to pass a brazier's shop where workmen were pounding out a piece of metal upon an anvil. By noting the variances in pitch between the sounds made by large hammers and those made by smaller implements, and carefully estimating the harmonies and discords resulting from combinations of these sounds, he gained his first clue to the musical intervals of the diatonic scale. He entered the shop, and after carefully examining the tools and making mental note of their weights, returned to his own house and constructed an arm of wood so that it: extended out from the wall of his room. At regular intervals along this arm he attached four cords, all of like composition, size, and weight. To the first of these he attached a twelve-pound weight, to the second a nine-pound weight, to the third an eight-pound weight, and to the fourth a six-pound weight. These different weights corresponded to the sizes of the braziers' hammers.
Pythagoras thereupon discovered that the first and fourth strings when sounded together produced the harmonic interval of the octave, for doubling the weight had the same effect as halving the string. The tension of the first string being twice that of the fourth string, their ratio was said to be 2:1, or duple. By similar experimentation he ascertained that the first and third string produced the harmony of the diapente, or the interval of the fifth. The tension of the first string being half again as much as that of the third string, their ratio was said to be 3:2, or sesquialter. Likewise the second and fourth strings, having the same ratio as the first and third strings, yielded a diapente harmony. Continuing his investigation, Pythagoras discovered that the first and second strings produced the harmony of the diatessaron, or the interval of the third; and the tension of the first string being a third greater than that of the second string, their ratio was said to be 4:3, or sesquitercian. The third and fourth strings, having the same ratio as the first and second strings, produced another harmony of the diatessaron. According to Iamblichus, the second and third strings had the ratio of 8:9, or epogdoan.
The key to harmonic ratios is hidden in the famous Pythagorean tetractys, or pyramid of dots. The tetractys is made up of the first four numbers--1, 2, 3, and 4--which in their proportions reveal the intervals of the octave, the diapente, and the diatessaron. While the law of harmonic intervals as set forth above is true, it has been subsequently proved that hammers striking metal in the manner
People who are open to these ideas have a plausible explanation as to the cosmological structure of the universe and the mathematics separating individual cosmoses. But why concern yourself with arguing a mindset you are opposed to? Stick with arguing about things like abortion and gender rights along with new age escapism which captivates the secular mind.
More nonsense. To use the example above the value in music is not pragmatic and does not serve anything beyond itself. The value of human relationships, which you seem to have not the foggiest notion of, is not determined by anything outside those relationships. Those of us who love do not love because of an objective meaning and purpose we have no knowledge of.
Music is vibration. You are closed to both the potential detrimental and healing effects of vibrations we interpret as music.
Animal or subjective love is a result of universal influences which are part of universal meaning and purpose. There is nothing conscious in it. It just happens because of the effects of force on animal life and these forces are an aspect of universal meaning and purpose.
Man creates his own values because they are of value, some as a means and some as an end. They have purpose and meaning for us, not to serve some cosmic fantasy.
This is true for fallen Man as a creature of REACTION in Plato’s cave. Conscious Man is capable of conscious ACTION which fallen man is incapable of so is forced to live values by hypocrisy.
In your own case, you pursue something you imagine to be good and call true, while shunning truth if it threatens your beliefs. Some prefer the truth to a lie while others, both those who tell them and those who believe them to be the truth, prefer "noble lies".
You deny the objective good so are limited to arguing pragmatic partial truths which make you feel important.
No, it is rather that secularism prevents people like you from deciding for everyone else what the good is.
If you ever acquire an open mind it will become obvious that when Plato introduced the good it isn’t to be blindly believed or denied. It is only valuable for those open to impartial conscious contemplation. They can receive its benefits.
Unless you have consciously evolved so as to have experienced the objective good then, as it has so elegantly been said STFU. It you have not experienced the objective good then you do not even know there is such a thing. You are just defining it according to the shadows of images on the cave wall. This is a truth that you are willfully blind to. You have chosen religion rather than philosophy, revelation over reason, what you have heard over what you have seen.
Unless a person has prematurely spiritually died inside they can open to the third direction of thought which leads towards the Good. Becoming aware of and experiencing the vertical conscious direction is not experiencing the Good. It is the beginning of the path. Secular intolerance is dedicated to destroying the beginning of the path for the young not yet able to stand up to adult secular intimidation. Thank the powers that be for the exceptions – those who recognize secular blindness for what it is. They eventually may learn what Simone did.
"
To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....
"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©
You appeal to your own blind belief and blind denial, imagining that you “remember” the good that you have always known. Are you merely “open to remembering the good” or do you remember and thereby know it? If you know the good then according to the Platonic myths you are not a lover of wisdom but one who possesses it and thus is no longer in pursuit of it. With knowledge of the good you have knowledge of the whole and are no longer in the cave. But you have admitted that you are in the cave and thus have no knowledge of the good. You have not remembered it and only believe that you have always known it.
This just silly and not even worthy of the status of Oprahism