What do you think will be the most important developments in the fields of Theosophy / Integral Studies by the year 2061?

Views: 194

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My hope, not sure of my expectations though, is that there somewhere in the world would be founded a theosophical school centred on musical composition entirely.   

There's a guy by the name of Nathan Fox that I recently read an autobiography of called "Eyes of an Autistic Yogi." A decent bit of the book is him talking about his passion for music, and he's no stranger to theosophy himself. You might want to get in touch with him, I'm sure he'll add you as a friend on facebook if you'd want.

I'm sure there are more than a few people with duel interests in theosophy and music out there... I'm halfway one myself. 

Thanks Seth, I found "Eyes of an Autistic Yogi" online, and I think the chapter about Scriabin is one of the most interesting explorations of his mystic chord and his idea of light-sound relation, that I have read so far. That was really a treat!  

I will try to look up Nathan Fox.

I really liked his (0=2)

That's an occult key like unto ( + . - ) or ( x / X)

Take an abstract algebraic formula like (+ . - ) as an example:

and see it as a progression of sorts, if you will:

(   )     = 0 Void/Pleroma/Quantum Foam/Chaos/Mystery/Unconscious/Deep/MahaPralaya/Mulaprakriti/Silence

(  .  ) = 1 (1st Logos) (appearance and activation of neutral, zero point laya)

( + . - ) = 2 (Radiation/emanation/primordial vibration/duality/dynamic spin, hum or motion/an energic chassis for manifestation like a vortex which creates the conditions for a polarity field capable of manifesting appearances of extremes/valences/numbers/measurements/consonants/formations (i.e., the Svabhava of Svabhavas: SVABVHAVAT).

Then, in dependance on those conditions and with the dynamic energy available, a process of fractal indivision, differentiation, involves and evolves amazingly enough so that at some point along the way eyes open to see what is going on, minds evolve to sense, feel, think and intuit.  Subjectively, we both apprehend as well as interpretively evaluate our sensual apprehensions.

It's like shorthand for a creation formula or a meme for genesis or manifestation, not unlike the reputed geometric symbology of something like Senzar glyphs, just in another formulation.

... or a similar progression (functional transform) of a similar formula like ( x /X ) as a way to distinguish multiplicities in what cannot be cut or in reverse, of cutting through or dissolving form (as in some Buddhist Vajrayana forms of subtle Tantric Chod practice).

What we have here is a discussion about correspondences, operational transforms and the resultant effect on resonance.

You are trying to draw them between Music and occult knowledge, but you could just as easily attempt to draw them between art and the occult, or languagee and the occult, because at their roots they are all pretty much the same creative process.

If you haven't already you might enjoy cross referencing or checking out various interpretive ideas of correspondence and sympathetic vibration in the work of Walter Russell or perhaps in a similar sense in a topic like Radiolnics.

I have always enjoyed the work of Hans Jenny on Cymatics (and his successors) in this context as well as the works of those who tried composing works on instruments like the "Color Organ."

I also think of a exploration like Rudolph Steiner's Eurthymy in this context.


In this context too I recently came across a wonderful new work called "The Hidden Geometry of Flowers" by the remarkable Keith Critchlow.  Check it out. Good soul food.

I am a designer and decorative visual artist, not a professional musician (although I do play guitar and in my decorative work especially seek the appearance of a corresponding musical sensibility), so that is my tangent with this sort of thing. I kind of think at this deep level all of the arts sort of begin to sip from the same cup. (i.e., It's hard to tell muses apart in undifferentiated formlessness). LOL

Yeah, or perhaps more to the point:

if 0 = 2 

then 2 also = 0

(so does 1, so do all numeric derivatives or combinations of 1 and 2, IOW, so do all numbers! Stop and think about that!)

What I'm trying to get at with all of this is somewhat akin to or along the lines of some interpretations of the esoteric Hebrew Sephir Yetzirah, or "Book of Formation", for example, with respect to numbers, letters and sounds as representatives of creative powers.

.... o get back to the interpretive algebra for a second ( John, I guess would suggest that this is a public exercise in what your FAQ describes as  a kind of "imaginal" functions):

if ( 2 = 0 )  can be said to be equivalent, in a sense, with some particular interpretations of ( + . - ) and ( x / X )

then ( 0 = 2 . 2 = 0 )

or

( 2 = 0 / 0 = 2 )

... are also equivalent expressions.

This includes Scriabin's interpretation and evaluation of those valences.

The author was taking about 2=0 as a ratio or a relationship, and trying to apply it as a means for how to find the root note of the sought after "mystic chord", almost like using the ratio's interpretation as a yardstick or divining rod to locate and somehow activate the quantum zero point or sonic laya center for that chord.

At least that's sort of how it hit me.

But I think also about that same 2 = 0 interpretive equivalency as a formula or context for understanding a prajnaparamita saying like "form is emptiness, emptiness is form."

"Then, in dependance on those conditions and with the dynamic energy available, a process of fractal indivision, differentiation, involves and evolves amazingly enough so that at some point along the way eyes open to see what is going on, minds evolve to sense, feel, think and intuit.  Subjectively, we both apprehend as well as interpretively evaluate our sensual apprehensions."
 
Yes, very well put. So it would be crucial for such a chord, that the produced apprehention and apprehention interpretation, as you put it, should occupy an equal presence to make the coexistency of those stand out. 
 
From your ( 0=2 . 2=0 ) I get that [0=2] is different from [2=0] as an expression and therefore they are also different from both 2 and 0, is that how you see it too? So that "=" is actually a fifth arithmetic operator? 
 
If [0=2] would be the expression of the element of coexistency between the esoteric and the exoteric, a condition under which those two realms cant exist and under which they would ultimately dissolve, it would be possible to use the expression [0=2], regardless of what Scriabin did, to describe the function of the mystic chord. The only question is how.
 
It seems clear that the notes are derived from the overtone series, and that any interval ratio would eventually have been discovered afterward. I recently read that Scriabin added a 7th note, the fifth, to the chord later in life. These notes are found in chronological order in the overtones from the 7th to the 13th overtone. What this means is, that whatever properties the chord contain, they would be properties that occur naturally in the overtone series.
 
Concerning the presence of number relationships, when Nathan applies the theory to interval ratios, things starts to get complicated! As music is entirely sensory, one doesnt need any background in music nor does it matter if one have been fed with cultural pollution, to recieve a direct sensory input - but to validate a particular theory one must conceptualize it out of the theurgy of listening, which is increasingly hard the more complex the theory. The significance of recognition of a numbers real presence by listening is sometimes underestimated. Hearing ratios between two different intervals as opposed to just hearing intervals would mean, that a number wouldnt be associated with an interval but only between two. I should probably go through Nathans analysis in the Scriabin thread rather than here though. 
"You are trying to draw them between Music and occult knowledge, but you could just as easily attempt to draw them between art and the occult, or languagee and the occult, because at their roots they are all pretty much the same creative process."
 
Yes absolutely. The different forms of creativity are all the same, some contemporary examples of installation art or performance art even makes a peculiarly unheralded resemblence of medieval alchemy experiments. The fact that the visual arts and particularly literature have a strong tendency to be conceptual or suggestive unlike music, doesnt make it a less natural approach to a pure creativity. However I would go as far as to say that it makes it dependent on culture and sociological experiences, which music is free from, and this is the reason I personally restrain my own work entirely to music and even abandoned the use of titles. The majority of people have been artificially conditioned through the school system to have a stronger affinity toward literature than any other form of creative powers. I think there is already an overall interest in literature among theosophists and other intellectuals. I think people who study sacred geometry naturally make the connection with the visual when such a study is carried out by visual means. But music get the least attention. It is a field that require life devotion and it really need to have its own exclusive sphere. 
 
I see it as a central part of a healthy society to have a school with the main focus on the practice of creativity from the students part, rather than the study of the work of others. The real practice being the only thing that really means something. Thats why I wonder if not already there has been established a branch within theosophical studies centered exclusively on the work with the material content of peoples life and not just the theory. 
 
If post-modernism, a state in absence of negation and short of complimentarity, were to be "worn out" as an idea in the collective mentality, a strong personal desire to stand the longevity test of ideas would become neccesary. I recently came across an article written by Dr Alan Kirkby stating that the future of the arts, the collective mentality would move toward what he called a "critical realism". 
 
A strengthened foundation for the creative fields, public accessability (not just superficially and aimlessly), and of course the importance of ensuring the highest level of standards, would potentially lead to a revolution of humanity, a complete change of values, thoughts, actions and the course of progress in culture. The creative fields from the public awareness could take a dramatic shift from being something that only exist from the point of view of looking outward onto the work of somebody else - but to become adopted by people, going from being a state jewelry object to become a practice. Because the practice is really the essense of appreciation of the creative fields. That would be the most vital step for progress in our culture. 
 
I dont think 50 years would do the job. If eventually we move toward a system of sustainability and an efficiency that enable people to live for free, then the average person will have time to explore life for the first time in recorded history. So it is not entirely unthinkable, that common values could suddently turn up site down.  
 
Thank you very much for your many recommendations. I will try to get through all of them. I have heard of eurythmy, and I thought it was closely related with theurgy. Very interesting and prosperous field that reaches all the way from the basic steps of elementary school to a possibly high level intimate contact with the creative source. 

Right. The mystic chord symbolized in an algebraic interpretation like (2 = 0) can then become like a means for a poly-inclusive theurgy that harmonizes listening and conceptuality: sense consciousness and mental factors.

It shakes into appearance a particular activity, order, sound, form, image, efficacy.

I agree that all the overtones are potentially present there. IMO, there is a relationship between those tones and primary geometric forms. I think of examples like cymatics or water sound mages. They (tones and geometries) are equivalent expressions as correspondences: both sound and form, even number-sound-and form. All of these are IMO, differentiated, energy releasing signs of non differentiated, soundless sound.

The arithmetic "operator" as you say, represented by (=) functions not only to neutralize into "coexistency" or equanimity any two terms under consideration -  it has other functions, one of which is creative, producing manifestable action into form.

As in the sequence which is implied by:

(    )   

(   =   )

(  2 = 0  )

Considered as an out going flow, bringing into appearance some formation into relationship with the "form relationship" we already call into awareness using word conveniences like "cosmos" or "experience" or "knowledge".

If you consider what ( = ) means in that interpretive formulation, then you begin to see that the values for both "2" and "0" as abstractions, can interpretively mean anything at all, or everything at all, everything that is, or potentially could be. Everything each of us knows and experiences, can, did or ever will. That whole thing as an interdependence including our subjective participation in it.

The mystic chord vibrates through all of that from every point in space, actively / potentially.

Consciously / unconsciously

this way / that way

( x / X )

( + . - )

(  2 = 0 )

(  =  )

(   )

dig it.

(   )

(  =  )

(  0 = 2 )

 A vajra dhatu, pure mandala, A psychocosm.

An individual lotus in a garden of lotuses.

Monad / Monas Monadum.

( 2 = 0 )

(  =  )

(   )

Whether in the sense of an interpretable understanding that harmonizes two discrete terms into oneness

or that "oneness" considered as a seeming appearance out of "no-thing" ...   of a common "basis to all" - an  attribute that can be apprehended as applicable to each and any particular, individually discernible or appreciably identifiable "thing" or "aggregate of things."

What I mean to say is kind of like trying to describe a chassis of sorts, or maybe a pattern that you might say is capable of defining the pearls in Indra's Net, as the multi-dimensional dynamic geometry of the gem itself in such a way that any appearance at all can arise within, project, refract and reflect.

I think that is one way to interpret the meaning of a formula like ( 2 = 0 ), the way that author described using it and apply it to the notion of a "mystic chord" It is a bit like searching for OM or perhaps to the composer, ritual praxis employing it.

IMO, that functionally means that the ( = ) operator, is both harmonizing/equalizing as well as creative/destructive, formatve/dissolutive.

A functional vajra yantra.

A laya center that can be ritually activated by the proper presence of attention.

As abstractions, you can parse the meaning of the terms (2) and (0) out to any pairs of opposites, any subjects, any objects, any senses, any mentality, any psychological state or form, like so many branching patterns and dynamic formations of growth, all in dependant relationship to one another.

Including each of our respective personal and individual participations in this seeming multiplicity. Participation that is both naturally spontaneous as well as conventional. Esoteric as well as exoteric.

Once the chord is heard it cannot be stopped.

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2019   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service