Pythagoras, Neoplatonism, Maths, Geometry.

[Seth Ananda]

Sorry about the exciting title people, but this is a info hunting page.

 

I wish to learn about the spiritual side of Mathematics and Geometry as practiced by the Pythagoreans and Neoplatonists.

 

Can anyone recommend any good and practical resources on these subjects?

Preferably by practitioners themselves rather than language or number scholars {who are an acceptable last resort}

 

Books, websites, audios?

 

Thank you.

 

Seth.

[voidisyinyang]

Oh no - you just stepped in a big doodie pile. haha.

 

See the Western world has been majorly scammed about Pythagorean philosophy.

 

Plato was not a real Pythagorean and so the NeoPlatonic philosophers are fakes.

 

This is not some -- oh maybe they were kind of all right - no because Plato created a new structural philosophy that was based on Pythagorean philosophy but fundamentally warped it.

 

Never heard of this? That's right - because it was covered up and the internet is chock full of FAKE Pythagorean philosophy that is really NeoPlatonic philosophy.

 

So you want to find the REAL Pythagorean philosophy out there?

 

Well http://peterkingsley.com is one good source.

 

He doesn't get into the mathematics so much.

 

For that - there is really not much help except that math professor Luigi Borzacchini has studied this issue - the Platonic versus Pythagorean math as based on music harmonics.

 

I have in turn studied Borzacchini and corresponded with him.

 

So I quote him -- umm - my blogpost that summarizes my research on this issue is here:

 

http://fulllotusqigong.blogspot.com/2012/11/non-commutative-resonance-quantum.html

[alleswasderfallist]

I've been getting into these subjects lately too. Michael Schneider's book A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe is pretty informative, though elementary at times. I plan to read Iamblichus' Theology of Arithmetic after I develop a deeper understanding of some of these concepts. I've also got a book called The Geometry of Art and Life on my shelf that looks quite deep and challenging. Can't wait to get into it.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I am sorry that I don't have much time to contribute to this thread now, but I will try to address a few issues quickly. I have been interested in the application of mathematics to mysticism and magic since I was a teenager in the late sixties. Thinking about Godel's Theorem was one of the reasons I decided to accept the Daodejing as a fundamental text.

At the time I found Ouspensky's Tertium Organum very useful, at least in the early parts where he outlines the analogies between two dimensional space and three dimensional space and how the can help us to understand four dimensional space. I didn't find the rest as interesting from the mathematical perspective.

See the Western world has been majorly scammed about Pythagorean philosophy.

Plato was not a real Pythagorean and so the NeoPlatonic philosophers are fakes.

This is not some -- oh maybe they were kind of all right - no because Plato created a new structural philosophy that was based on Pythagorean philosophy but fundamentally warped it.

Never heard of this? That's right - because it was covered up and the internet is chock full of FAKE Pythagorean philosophy that is really NeoPlatonic philosophy.

So you want to find the REAL Pythagorean philosophy out there?

Well http://peterkingsley.com is one good source.

With all due respect to pythagoreanfulllotus, as a person who has read both a lot of Plato and the Neoplatonists and also Peter Kingsley, I have to say that Kingsley's critique of Plato is superficial and based on misunderstandings of what Plato is really talking about. I suspect that most people who are impressed by Kingsly's, or for that matter Derrida's critique have not read much Plato, nor thought deeply about what little they have read.

In the late seventies I embarked on a major study of the Platonic tradition, solely because I considered its important to understanding Western Magic as represented in Agrippa. My Previous experience with Plato left me with a negative impression, but after several years of study I came to the conclusion that aside from historical value of understanding the worldview of Agrippa, there was considerable value to Plato himself and the school of thought that derives from him. Among other things, unless you actually have read the dialogues, Plotinus will seem nothing but a confused, rambling geezer who can't make up his mind, but once you have some background in Aristotle, the Stoics and yes, Plato, it becomes clear that he is recounting and then refuting the positions of other schools and then defending and explicating the doctrines which are implied by the dialogues.

I wish that I had more time to address these issues now, but I don't, maybe another time.

ZYD

[Seth Ananda]

With all due respect to pythagoreanfulllotus, as a person who has read both a lot of Plato and the Neoplatonists and also Peter Kingsley, I have to say that Kingsley's critique of Plato is superficial and based on misunderstandings of what Plato is really talking about.

I totaly agree with this. I have read all of kingsleys books, some several times, and listened to interviews and read articles.

 

He is totally mistaken about Plato, who {despite what Kingsley believes} is teaching pure Mysticism, well, pure at least with some politics on the side...

 

Neoplatonism again is pure mysticism and a continuation of the great chain of Egyptian teachings. Plotinus who founded it did his training in Alexandria.

 

​To say Plotinus is a faker is probably one of the stupidest statements of the century. He is a Mystic mega genius!

[Seth Ananda]

I really just want to find a simple book on maths or geometry that show the Mystical relationship from a Neoplatonist or Pythagorean perspective and that starts simply.

 

I have read a beginners guide to constructing the universe, and i cant stand ouspensky, although I did read several of his books back in the day.

[voidisyinyang]

I really just want to find a simple book on maths or geometry that show the Mystical relationship from a Neoplatonist or Pythagorean perspective and that starts simply.

 

I have read a beginners guide to constructing the universe, and i cant stand ouspensky, although I did read several of his books back in the day.

 

 

If you understand the math -- like math professor Luigi Borzacchini - then you would understand that Peter Kingsley is correct and that those who think Plato is a "true mystic" are really just superifical and brainwashed by modern Western mentalities.

 

I know - you want the math to be "simple" - but - Plato was relying on Archytas and the math is not that simple. Math is not that simple of a subject.

[voidisyinyang]

I am sorry that I don't have much time to contribute to this thread now, but I will try to address a few issues quickly. I have been interested in the application of mathematics to mysticism and magic since I was a teenager in the late sixties. Thinking about Godel's Theorem was one of the reasons I decided to accept the Daodejing as a fundamental text.

 

At the time I found Ouspensky's Tertium Organum very useful, at least in the early parts where he outlines the analogies between two dimensional space and three dimensional space and how the can help us to understand four dimensional space. I didn't find the rest as interesting from the mathematical perspective.

 

 

With all due respect to pythagoreanfulllotus, as a person who has read both a lot of Plato and the Neoplatonists and also Peter Kingsley, I have to say that Kingsley's critique of Plato is superficial and based on misunderstandings of what Plato is really talking about. I suspect that most people who are impressed by Kingsly's, or for that matter Derrida's critique have not read much Plato, nor thought deeply about what little they have read.

 

In the late seventies I embarked on a major study of the Platonic tradition, solely because I considered its important to understanding Western Magic as represented in Agrippa. My Previous experience with Plato left me with a negative impression, but after several years of study I came to the conclusion that aside from historical value of understanding the worldview of Agrippa, there was considerable value to Plato himself and the school of thought that derives from him. Among other things, unless you actually have read the dialogues, Plotinus will seem nothing but a confused, rambling geezer who can't make up his mind, but once you have some background in Aristotle, the Stoics and yes, Plato, it becomes clear that he is recounting and then refuting the positions of other schools and then defending and explicating the doctrines which are implied by the dialogues.

 

I wish that I had more time to address these issues now, but I don't, maybe another time.

 

ZYD

 

 

Maybe you want to provide some evidence of your claim against Kingsley being superficial?

 

It sounds like you are not really engaging with Kingsley. He did his Ph.D. at Oxford on Pythagorean philosophy -- so that's the opposite of being superficial.

 

Have you read his actual Ph.D.? It was published by Oxford University Press in 1996. I read that book first.

 

If you read his later books you might be fooled in thinking he is being superficial. Nope - he is just exposing the serious deep level of mind control ever since Plato - of course people are not going to want to believe him. haha.

[voidisyinyang]

I am sorry that I don't have much time to contribute to this thread now, but I will try to address a few issues quickly. I have been interested in the application of mathematics to mysticism and magic since I was a teenager in the late sixties. Thinking about Godel's Theorem was one of the reasons I decided to accept the Daodejing as a fundamental text.

 

At the time I found Ouspensky's Tertium Organum very useful, at least in the early parts where he outlines the analogies between two dimensional space and three dimensional space and how the can help us to understand four dimensional space. I didn't find the rest as interesting from the mathematical perspective.

 

 

With all due respect to pythagoreanfulllotus, as a person who has read both a lot of Plato and the Neoplatonists and also Peter Kingsley, I have to say that Kingsley's critique of Plato is superficial and based on misunderstandings of what Plato is really talking about. I suspect that most people who are impressed by Kingsly's, or for that matter Derrida's critique have not read much Plato, nor thought deeply about what little they have read.

 

In the late seventies I embarked on a major study of the Platonic tradition, solely because I considered its important to understanding Western Magic as represented in Agrippa. My Previous experience with Plato left me with a negative impression, but after several years of study I came to the conclusion that aside from historical value of understanding the worldview of Agrippa, there was considerable value to Plato himself and the school of thought that derives from him. Among other things, unless you actually have read the dialogues, Plotinus will seem nothing but a confused, rambling geezer who can't make up his mind, but once you have some background in Aristotle, the Stoics and yes, Plato, it becomes clear that he is recounting and then refuting the positions of other schools and then defending and explicating the doctrines which are implied by the dialogues.

 

I wish that I had more time to address these issues now, but I don't, maybe another time.

 

ZYD

 

 

Wow - no wonder you follow Plato as being brainwashed - your tag is for a Confucian text - which is the same brainwashed Platonic philosophy. I document this in my book.

 

Knowing words: wisdom and cunning in the classical traditions of China

and Greece by Lisa Ann Raphals compares metis to a traditional Chinese context:

 

 

Here the individual of zhi frequently appears as a sage-general, whose mastery of

the art of deception allows him to prevail over an opponent of stronger physical

force, a mode of operation of those strongly reminiscent of that associated with

the individual possessing mētis. Taoist texts, on the other hand, deride “small

knowledge” (Zhuangzi), or even all knowledge (Laozi)…. Since the Han dynasty,

the rationalist and moralistic world view of Confucianism has dominated the

Chinese intellectual, social and political tradition in much the same way

Platonism came to represent the Greek world view. And Confucianism, like

Platonism, carries its own metaphysical assumptions about wisdom and

knowledge.

 

Lisa Ann Raphals, Knowing words: wisdom and cunning in the classical traditions of China and

Greece (Cornell University Press, 1992), p. 20.

 

O.K. so just as with Plato changing the meaning of Pythagorean philosophy, we see the same

solar-patriarchal transformation in China through the philosopher Dong Zongshu in the 2nd

Century B.C. Philosophy professor David L. Hall documents that Zongshu changed the meaning

of yin-yang from being a fluid process of resonance with equal but complementary gender

relations to being a static hierarchical axiom based on left-brained patriarchal logic. The book

The Tao and the Logos : literary hermeneutics, East and West by Chang, Lung-hsi (1992)

documents that it was Dong Zongshu who was the most important philosopher to make

patriarchal Confucionism the dominant ideology of China.

Edited June 12, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[voidisyinyang]

Seth - the real Pythagorean math is very easy but the difficult part is unlearning all the Western brainwashing.

 

So as soon as you are ready to do that - then the process can begin.

[Seth Ananda]

Drew can you stop drewifying my thread with your usual inability to communicate. I am not interested in your Drewterpritation of a bunch of schollars who have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

Kingsley is a bit of a dick at times. I think he was taught about Plato in a certain way at school, and came to believe it was what Plato is about, which is invariably incorrect. Then he went on to champion the typical 'I am the only one who knows what was really going on' stance that so many hyper egg heads are fond of.

 

Plato tends to gets taught as one of the founding fathers of Reason and logic and his mysticism {which is straight out of Egypt ~ a Greek synchrotisation of Egyptian thought} is seen as being just some secondary superstition that could not be helped due to the times he was alive in.

 

Thats just wrong. Plato was a straight up mystic teaching the return path to the One. As is also taught in Hermetics and Kabbalah, and other systems who's thought is rooted in Egypt.

 

As for flaunting his qualifications, well big deal. There are dozens of similarly qualified egg heads out there who have differing opinions to him.

[voidisyinyang]

Drew can you stop drewifying my thread with your usual inability to communicate. I am not interested in your Drewterpritation of a bunch of schollars who have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

Kingsley is a bit of a dick at times. I think he was taught about Plato in a certain way at school, and came to believe it was what Plato is about, which is invariably incorrect. Then he went on to champion the typical 'I am the only one who knows what was really going on' stance that so many hyper egg heads are fond of.

 

Plato tends to gets taught as one of the founding fathers of Reason and logic and his mysticism {which is straight out of Egypt ~ a Greek synchrotisation of Egyptian thought} is seen as being just some secondary superstition that could not be helped due to the times he was alive in.

 

Thats just wrong. Plato was a straight up mystic teaching the return path to the One. As is also taught in Hermetics and Kabbalah, and other systems who's thought is rooted in Egypt.

 

As for flaunting his qualifications, well big deal. There are dozens of similarly qualified egg heads out there who have differing opinions to him.

 

 

No - I'm saying READ Kingsley - his view on Plato is against all the "egg heads" that you refer to.

 

the idea of Plato being a mystic is not some unacademic view -- Kingsley is way more nuanced than that.

 

What did I say in my original post - no it does not mean that Plato was still a "mystic" -- but just a different kind of mystic.

 

I realize Plato was a mystic - that is obvious - but he was a fundamentally wrong kind of mystic.

 

Unless you study the math you don't understand that this is a structural issue of logic - it's not based on some individual's interpretation.

 

Math professor Luigi Borzacchini understands this.

 

You really haven't read Kingsley and you haven't read Borzacchini.

 

My tag name here is Pythagorean.

 

So stop the ad hominems and engage with the content.

 

I quote Kingsley in my masters thesis from 2000.

 

I've been researching this particular subject for a while.

 

Are you really that surprised that real Pythagorean philosophy is not understood?

 

O.K. Economics professor Michael Hudson even understands the truth!

 

So Plato from ARchytas uses the square root of two as the fundamental secret of his philosophy. This is NOT Pythagorean philosophy but it was called Pythagorean philosophy!! This was then promoted by Plato as the model for social inequity.

 

 

The worst problem in tuning occurs in the interval of three whole tones, e.g., between C and F#/Gb in the “natural” untempered methods of tuning. If the ratio of the octave is 2:1, then the ratio of C to F# represents the square root of two — an irrational number. (Burkert [1972:441] notes that the harmonic mean [Archytas' subcontrary mean] discovered in the context of Pythagorean music theory has a major use precisely in approximating the square root.)....

 

Pythagoras became the patron saint of the most anti-democratic clubs. They used the principles of musical harmony as a patina of pseudo-science to give

intellectual legitimacy to a movement whose worldly consequences were anything

but harmonious. The Pythagorean clubs became a network of civic cults rising

above the local sphere to which most clubs related. There seems to have been

some connection with the Delphi temple (the name Pythagoras means “voice of

Pythia,” the snake-goddess of Delphi and its oracle). They have been likened to

the Free Masons, in that they served as a kind of Council of Foreign Relations or

New World Order…. Archytas developed the musical scale into a political

metaphor for the scales of justice. What gave music this imagery of social balance

and just proportion was the ability of its mathematics of harmonic (“geometric”)

proportions to serve as an analogy for how inequities of wealth and status

rendered truly superior men equal in proportion to their virtue — which tended to

reflect their wealth. By this circular logic the wealthy were enabled to rationalize

their hereditary dominance over the rest of the population.

 

Michael Hudson’s essay, “Music as an Analogy for Economic Order in Classical Antiquity” in Jürgen Backhaus (ed.), Karl Bücher. Theory, History, Anthropology, Non-Market Economies (Marburg:Metropolis Verlag, 2000): pp. 113-35 citing Burkert, Walter (1972), Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Harvard University Press, 1972).

[silent thunder]

I really just want to find a simple book on maths or geometry that show the Mystical relationship from a Neoplatonist or Pythagorean perspective and that starts simply.

 

I have read a beginners guide to constructing the universe, and i cant stand ouspensky, although I did read several of his books back in the day.

 

I'm a real noob to sacred geometry, but I got some mileage out of http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1891824171

I was particularly taken with the breakdown of the math relationships and geometric ratios inherent in different species and how they all relate back to the platonic solids and the relationships found in the flower of life.

 

Volume I doesn't start getting into the math until the end, it's got a lot of his back story (which I found pretty fun). Vol II is really focused on the math, Fibonacci, seed of life, tree of life, the platonic solids, merkabah. Fun stuff.

[voidisyinyang]

I'm a real noob to sacred geometry, but I got some mileage out of http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1891824171

I was particularly taken with the breakdown of the math relationships and geometric ratios inherent in different species and how they all relate back to the platonic solids and the relationships found in the flower of life.

 

Volume I doesn't start getting into the math until the end, it's got a lot of his back story (which I found pretty fun). Vol II is really focused on the math, Fibonacci, seed of life, tree of life, the platonic solids, merkabah. Fun stuff.

 

It might be fun for you but it's not only fake - it's wrong!!

 

Drunvalo Melchizadek might seem like a nice guy but he's pushing some pretty nasty views!!

 

Drunvalo Melchizadek is a fake "Pythagorean" - he is definitely a "NeoPlatonic" philosopher -- but do you really want to replace Nature with synthetic sacred geometry? Because that's what his view is!!

 

 

So here we are, carbon-based life forms creating silicon-based life forms, and

we’re interacting with each other. We’re going to have two different life

forms/components of the Earth connecting with each other, and the speed with

which we evolve at that point, aside from everything else, is going to be very,

very fast – faster than anything we would normally expect. I believe that this will

come true in this lifetime….

 

First of all -- there are not any silicon-based life forms. He is pushing some fake AI idea that would destroy ecology!

 

That's not a "fun" thing to do.

 

 

In fact I’m convinced that there are no Golden Mean rectangles or spirals in

existence unless they’re synthetically made. …This is a problem for Mother

Nature. Life does not know how to deal with something that has no beginning and no end…. The Golden Mean spiral is the ideal. It’s like God, the Source.

 

So Drunvalo Melchizadek is against Mother Nature and for synthetically made golden mean "sacred geometry."

 

See -- he's upfront about it! Yes the golden ratio is really not found in Nature.

 

Also the Golden Ratio is NOT Pythagorean philosophy -- is it Platonic? Sure but again that means going against Nature.

 

Not a very nice view for someone on a Taoist website.

 

You gotta watch these New Agers - Drunvalo Melchizadek comes out of a New Age scene that is funded by the CIA - a mind control, mass sacrifice, torture Freemasonic secret society - and yes the Freemasons also rely on and push the Golden Ratio from Platonic philosophy.

 

Athough not by name, the Matrix Plan is also promoted prominently by Drunvalo

Melchizedek who states in his first book that the yin/yang ratios as the Fibonacci series of

mother nature are not infinite and that the ratios of technological geometry, the Golden Ratio

with its “contained infinity,” are actually god and the future of a holographic matrix.

 

I go into what the Actual Matrix Plan is and why it is against real Pythagorean-Taoist philosophy on this website http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_matrix43.htm

[voidisyinyang]

well Kingsley did his Ph.D. on the PreSocratics -- so the Ph.D. was published as a book called "Ancient Mystery, Magic and Philosophy." So this, as a Ph.D., was groundbreaking work. Of course expertise in the PreSocratics requires expertise on Socratic philosophy which is from Plato.

 

As for the structural disagreement between Platonic philosophy and real Pythagorean philosophy -- as I stated to Seth - the math of Pythagorean philosophy is very simple but it's a matter of unlearning all the Western brainwashing.

 

So then I posted how economics professor Michael Hudson understands this and Hudson references Burkert on Pythagorean philosophy stating how Archytas developed the "Harmonic Mean" as a tool to create the geometric mean as the square root of two - the irrational magnitude as incommensurability, the focus of the Greek Miracle that launched Western civilization.

 

So Kingsley argues that Western civilization has lost its roots in true magical training but that Platonic philosophy is derived from this original mystical magical training. So Plato used the Archytas version of Pythagorean philosophy and so the "harmonic mean" did not exist in traditional or "orthodox" Pythagorean philosophy.

 

O.K. so first of all when we all learn the square root of two Pythagorean theorem in school - that is NOT from Pythagoras! It is from Archytas. When I was in 10th grade in my "enriched geometry" class I never accepted the Pythagorean theorem as true because I knew the true music Pythagorean origins for it. So this is from the major 2nd music ratio as 9/8 which is cubed to the square root of two. Now by me explaining this I have already "stepped in the doodie" as I stated before. I good brainwashed Westerner will say that 9/8 cubed is "not" the square root of two. But I am talking about the secret Pythagorean music origins. The same can be said of the cube root of two which is derived from the ratio 5/4 which is actually the major third music interval based on 10/8 or two major 2nd music intervals. So if you know a bit of math you can see where this is going - it is a conversion of the music intervals to the 12 tone equal-tempered music scale. This is what Archytas was beginning to do and he did it by using fake Pythagorean teachings - so he got them from a man who left the Pythagorean school and so he was not truly initiated.

 

To be an orthodox Pythagorean required nine years of silence!! So what was the real Pythagorean teaching? Well it was actually the same as Taoism! So the Pythagorean tetrad is 1:2:3:4 and guess what? I documented that in Taoism the Perfect fifth music interval is yang as the ratio 2:3 and the Perfect fourth music interval is yin as 3:4. So how does this translate back into Pythagorean philosophy? What does it mean? See the problem of incommensurability remains unsolved even today!! This is acknowledged by math professor Luigi Borzacchini who traces this problem to the very origins of Western math from this secret music Pythagorean tradition. So again incommensurability as the irrational number was created by Archytas and spread as a political and moral philosophy by Plato. But it goes against Pythagorean philosophy because the complementary opposites of the Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth means they go on infinitely as number and harmony but they can not be "contained" by the irrational number.

 

So in the West people often learn "sacred geometry" but do so by learning the irrational numbers that go along with it and also the philosophy -- like I pointed out about Drunvalo Melchizadek - he knowingly is promoting sacred geometry as the destruction of ecology! But the thing is that is the structural drive of Platonic philosophy - and it is also the secret structural drive of Western science. Now obviously people are not going to want to seriously accept this - because we really don't have a choice about modern technology - why? Because it is forced on us on a structural level! So I could go into this but the point is it is all based on this math and so it's crucial to understand the origins of the math. As math professor Luigi Borzacchini states the origins of Western math is based on a "deep pre-established disharmony."

 

So Platonic philosophy is this deep pre-established disharmony. A lot of people are not familiar with how Plato used Pythagorean philosophy -- music philosophy - it is the focus of Timaeus for example. Musicologist Ernest McClain has written the Pythagorean Plato book which gives more details - McClain is promoting this philosophy btw. Of course he would have to otherwise he would have to go all against Western civilization and it would be difficult for him to promote that message. haha.

 

So for example Plato has a eugenics philosophy whereby he says that each citizen of the state is the ratio 9/8 which again is the major 2nd music interval. So then each citizen must "be compromised for the good of the state." This is from Ernest McClain - I can look it up from my book. I have a long chapter on this in my book - but anyway I'm just giving an overview here. So that is the promotion of the equal-tempered music ratios from ARchytas - the 9/8 as the untempered major 2nd has to be tempered - into the logarithmic irrational numbers - to create the square root of two which is three major 2nd music intervals as the tritone.

 

What is the tritone? It is the most dissonant music interval called the Devil's Interval. See the Western church was at first against this Platonic philosophy - using Aristotelian philosophy. So Aristotle was against Plato's attempt to "contain" infinity by the use of the "negative infinity" which is the concept of zero and also the concept of starting out infinity from a closed geometric materialistic philosophy. So it is mystical but it is what is called technospirituality - a materialistic mysticism. I go into this more in detail in my book - quoting F.W. Schelling and other philosophers who have analyzed this problem which is found again in Hegel - as the long tradition of Plato is continued. The most recent version of Platonic philosophy is from Leo Strauss, the great inspiration for the Neocons.

 

So what Plato did, as say philosopher of science Stephen Toulmin documented in his final book, Plato changed the Pythagorean concept of "metis" -- as I mentioned already, referencing others who have exposed this and the parallel to Confucian philosophy. So "metis" originally meant female skill or energy without using words. Plato changed metis to mean female cunning to use words as lies. So then Plato argued the people should use lies in order to defend the "greater good" but how was the greater good defined? Exactly by the "harmonic" or geometric mean proportions that create exponential or logarithmic geometric relations. That means the elite get an exponentially greater share of material wealth and this is the greater good that is defended by this new definition of "metis." And how will this logarithmically defined expansion of wealth be achieved? By using technology designed through the same geometric irrational ratios that are logarithmic - and it is all based on twisting the true meaning of Pythagorean philosophy.

 

So geometric irrational ratios are very precise - and in that sense deceptively powerful - how else could we have Western science? But geometric irrational ratios are not accurate and it's more important to be accurate first than to be precise. So the original Pythagorean philosophy was accurate because it did not misrepresent the truth of incommensurability - that number and geometry do not line up and so therefore you get an infinite extension of number as complementary opposites - male and female numbers. So the Pythagoreans taught that the number 1 is male but it is not really a number - why? Because it is actually consciousness that infinitely goes into the Emptiness - Apeiron. And what is the Emptiness - it is the Cosmic Mother. And so then the first matter is the female number 2 which is actually a reflection or resonance of this eternal female void that is not really empty. If this sounds like Taoism -- it should - because it is the same as real Taoist philosophy. So then 2:3 is yang as electromagnetic energy and 3:4 is yin as electrochemical energy.

 

This is the "three-in-one" unity - you can not separate one number from the other - and it has to be contemplated in silence for a long time in a pure environment. Plato was an oil merchant and his goal was not this real mystical training. Sure he relied on it but instead turned it into a materialistic mysticism - based on using the new geometry created by Archytas from the Pythagorean philosophy. So the Pythagorean math is deceptively simple - just like Taoist yin-yang philosophy - but to practice it on a sincere level is exceedingly difficult. Meanwhile there is all this fake "sacred geometry" using irrational numbers which really is not Pythagorean philosophy at all. It's the perfect way to cover up the real philosophy - a "bait and switch" tactic. So that way you say Pythagoras - and people go - Oh I know him he created the square root of two! haha. Quite the contrary. So the myth that someone who discovered his "secret" of the square root of two and then told about it was then killed - this is the typical myth to hide the true Pythagorean teachings. The "Orthodox" Pythagorean philosophers ONLY used the Tetrad - 1:2:3:4 - they did not even use the number 8 - so they could not have even created the 9/8 ratio as the major 2nd music interval. In other words the scale was just the octaves and the perfect fifth and perfect fourth. You find the same music intervals in all human cultures - and it derives from the original human culture - the Bushmen of Africa who were the original Pythagorean-Taoists - using the 1-4-5 music intervals as alchemical training.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

With all due respect to pythagoreanfulllotus, as a person who has read both a lot of Plato and the Neoplatonists and also Peter Kingsley, I have to say that Kingsley's critique of Plato is superficial and based on misunderstandings of what Plato is really talking about. I suspect that most people who are impressed by Kingsly's, or for that matter Derrida's critique have not read much Plato, nor thought deeply about what little they have read.

 

Maybe you want to provide some evidence of your claim against Kingsley being superficial?

 

It sounds like you are not really engaging with Kingsley. He did his Ph.D. at Oxford on Pythagorean philosophy -- so that's the opposite of being superficial.

 

Have you read his actual Ph.D.? It was published by Oxford University Press in 1996. I read that book first.

 

If you read his later books you might be fooled in thinking he is being superficial. Nope - he is just exposing the serious deep level of mind control ever since Plato - of course people are not going to want to believe him. haha.

 

as a person who has read both a lot of Plato and the Neoplatonists and also Peter Kingsley

 

Have you read his actual Ph.D?

 

I am not prone to making idle or unsupportable claims, of course I have read Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic, his Phd thesis, and two other books, Reality and In the Dark Places of Wisdom. I have also read all the Platonic dialogues, except The Laws, of which I have read sections. How many of the Platonic dialogues have you read?

 

serious deep level of mind control

 

res ipsa loquitur

 

That he did his Ph.D. in Pythagorean philosophy does not seem to be a good indicator to me that he would have a vetted expertise in the philosophy of Plato. That's an interesting assumption to make to me, considering that Pythagoras influenced Plato and not the other way around. The only thing a Ph.D. in Pythagorean philosophy would seem to indicate to me would be an expertise in Pythagoras.

 

A point which is not really satifactorally addressed by:

 

 

well Kingsley did his Ph.D. on the PreSocratics -- so the Ph.D. was published as a book called "Ancient Mystery, Magic and Philosophy." So this, as a Ph.D., was groundbreaking work. Of course expertise in the PreSocratics requires expertise on Socratic philosophy which is from Plato.

 

Of course expertise in the PreSocratics requires expertise on Socratic philosophy

 

Of course it doesn't, it requires only enough familiarity to be able to convincingly quote from and comment on secondary sources and their opinions about Plato.

 

Socratic philosophy which is from Plato

 

Plato learned from Socrates, how can Socratic philosophy be from Plato? Xenophon, Euclid of Megara and others made claims to represent Socratic philosophy, but I am sure you know all about that, it must have just slipped your mind for a moment.

 

Maybe you want to provide some evidence of your claim against Kingsley being superficial?

 

Please go back to what I said:

 

“Kingsley's critique of Plato is superficial and based on misunderstandings of what Plato is really talking about. I suspect that most people who are impressed by Kingsly's, or for that matter Derrida's critique have not read much Plato, nor thought deeply about what little they have read.”

 

Kingsley's critique of Plato is superficial and based on misunderstandings

 

First of all I found many interesting and deeply researched ideas on the Pre-Socrates, but I found his criticism of Plato to be superficial and biased. It is Kingsley's critique of Plato which I found superficial, not his discussion of the Pre-Socratics.

 

Maybe you want to provide some evidence of your claim against Kingsley being superficial

 

I am not going to go back through his whole book to find examples of misunderstanding. I have chosen one since I think it will prove exemplary, but since it will require a somewhat longer discussion, added to this already long post, I will postpone it (yes a pun of sorts was intended) for another time. It is on page 80 of Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic and is part of discussion of myth and logos. The core is "...the positive certainty arrived at by reasoned arguement.", but this will require a little time of which I have already spent more than I care to on this matter. My discussion will appear in a few days.

 

I suspect that most people who are impressed by Kingsly's, or for that matter Derrida's critique have not read much Plato, nor thought deeply about what little they have read

 

I will close for now by asking again, how many of Plato's dialogues have you actually read?

 

[alleswasderfallist]

You gotta watch these New Agers - Drunvalo Melchizadek comes out of a New Age scene that is funded by the CIA - a mind control, mass sacrifice, torture Freemasonic secret society - and yes the Freemasons also rely on and push the Golden Ratio from Platonic philosophy.

 

 

The CIA is enlightened enough to know which New Agers to support and which not to? Seems unlikely at best. As far as the CIA is concerned, we're all New Agers, regardless of our opinions on Plato.

[voidisyinyang]

 

as a person who has read both a lot of Plato and the Neoplatonists and also Peter Kingsley

 

Have you read his actual Ph.D?

 

I am not prone to making idle or unsupportable claims, of course I have read Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic, his Phd thesis, and two other books, Reality and In the Dark Places of Wisdom. I have also read all the Platonic dialogues, except The Laws, of which I have read sections. How many of the Platonic dialogues have you read?

 

serious deep level of mind control

 

res ipsa loquitur

 

 

A point which is not really satifactorally addressed by:

 

 

 

Of course expertise in the PreSocratics requires expertise on Socratic philosophy

 

Of course it doesn't, it requires only enough familiarity to be able to convincingly quote from and comment on secondary sources and their opinions about Plato.

 

Socratic philosophy which is from Plato

 

Plato learned from Socrates, how can Socratic philosophy be from Plato? Xenophon, Euclid of Megara and others made claims to represent Socratic philosophy, but I am sure you know all about that, it must have just slipped your mind for a moment.

 

Maybe you want to provide some evidence of your claim against Kingsley being superficial?

 

Please go back to what I said:

 

 

Kingsley's critique of Plato is superficial and based on misunderstandings

 

First of all I found many interesting and deeply researched ideas on the Pre-Socrates, but I found his criticism of Plato to be superficial and biased. It is Kingsley's critique of Plato which I found superficial, not his discussion of the Pre-Socratics.

 

Maybe you want to provide some evidence of your claim against Kingsley being superficial

 

I am not going to go back through his whole book to find examples of misunderstanding. I have chosen one since I think it will prove exemplary, but since it will require a somewhat longer discussion, added to this already long post, I will postpone it (yes a pun of sorts was intended) for another time. It is on page 80 of Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic and is part of discussion of myth and logos. The core is "...the positive certainty arrived at by reasoned arguement.", but this will require a little time of which I have already spent more than I care to on this matter. My discussion will appear in a few days.

 

I suspect that most people who are impressed by Kingsly's, or for that matter Derrida's critique have not read much Plato, nor thought deeply about what little they have read

 

I will close for now by asking again, how many of Plato's dialogues have you actually read?

 

Kingsley doesn't rely on secondary sources - it's a Ph.D.!!

 

You keep saying he is superficial - well show an example already! haha.

 

 

. It is on page 80 of Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic and is part of discussion of myth and logos. The core is "...the positive certainty arrived at by reasoned arguement.", but this will require a little time of which I have already spent more than I care to on this matter. My discussion will appear in a few days.

 

So -- too bad you don't "want" to prove your point. haha.

 

HILARIOUS!!

 

As Kingsley puts it,

 

“By the time of Plato and Aristotle, the doors of understanding were closed...argument is more

important than appreciation, reinterpretation an easy substitute for understanding...[the

denigration] destroyed the mythical dialectic.”

“By the time of Plato and Aristotle, the doors of understanding were closed...argument is more

important than appreciation, reinterpretation an easy substitute for understanding...[the

denigration] destroyed the mythical dialectic.”

 

Peter Kingsley, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 108-110.

 

The issue with Plato is the structural mathematics that warp real Pythagorean philosophy - I have already demonstrated this.

 

As I stated Kingsley doesn't get into the math -- but he does understand this truth.

 

That's why Westerners don't easily appreciate Kingsley so he turns more to the Sufi tradition.

 

So you have not mentioned Archytas? haha. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the mathematics of Plato.

 

Maybe you want to read Ernest McClain's book the Pythagorean Plato.

 

Eudoxus, Philolaus and Hippocrates (not the medical doctor), along with Archytas, were the creators of the foundation of western science – the first logical “objective” math “Power Set Axiom” – not Pythagoras! In other words Pythagoras is lied about and covered-up as a “vanishing mediator” at the origin of the West.

 

The subject being discussed is Plato's misuse of Pythagorean philosophy - which again Michael Hudson, the economics professor even understands! This is from citing Burkert.

 

So this issue is not limited to just the "presocratics" as they are called - it goes into Eastern culture as the newest book by Peter Kingsley focuses on.

 

I have discussed this with other academics:

 

“For Plato’s influence on Pythagoreanism, Burkert 1972. Despite my best attempts to follow McClain 1976, there appears to me still no conclusive evidence for the musical ratios in cuneiform sources – although I would be hardly surprised if it emerges.” Professor John Curtis Franklin, “The Wisdom of the Lyre: Soundings in Ancient Greece, Cyprus and the Near East,” 2000, Symposium on the International Study Group on Music Archaeology. Footnote 10.

 

So that was 2000. I emailed Professor John Curtis Franklin and got the following response:

 

The Pythagorean tuning based on the 4ths and 5ths, almost certainly, goes back to at least 2100 BCE, based on the Sumerian musical terms of some of the cuneiform texts.

 

John Curtis Franklin, email communication, April 12, 2011.

 

O.K. so let's focus on the information being discussed.

 

Pythagorean philosophy is based on the Tetrad using the Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth music ratios -- it was corrupted into a "sacred geometry" NeoPlatonism using irrational geometry.

 

“The Lyre Gods' chordophonic super-powers would be based, naturally, on the ritual functions of the instrument in question. From the evidence to be considered, these duties

included prophecy, healing, purification, city foundation rituals and the general establishment of

Order.”

 

John Curtis Franklin, “Lyre Gods of the Bronze Age Musical Koine,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern

Religions 6.2 (2006).

 

 

The yogic goal of bodily and spiritual balance is consonant with the Indo-

European notion of ‘measure’ which surfaces as a cardinal attribute of the cognate

‘medical’..., and which is the essence of ‘meditation.’ In Greece we find ideas of

harmony applied extensively to the body, often (but not exclusively) in

Pythagoreanizing sources as a concomitant to the belief that the mind or soul is

simply the ‘attunement’ of the body – the Harmony which supervenes on its

harmonized components….

 

John Curtis Franklin, “Harmony in Greek and Indo-Iranian Cosmology,” The Journal of Indo-European

Studies, Volume 30, No. 1 and 2., 2002, p. 13.

 

So this harmonization issue of mind-body transformation was attacked by Plato.

Edited June 13, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[voidisyinyang]

Yeah you should read my masters thesis from 2000!

 

 

Social systems theory analyst Bateson makes the same point, "logic cannot model causal systems-paradox is generated when time is ignored....apart from language, there are no named classes and no-subject-predicate relations."(88) Berendt points out the difference in Asian languages from western language and the cultural analyst Noël Burch has examined the subsequent different cultural interpretations of reality.(89) Similarly the translator of ancient Greek, philosopher and mathematician Robert Schimdt, has shown that western logos was derived out of a broader language system of phasis--which is the means by which objects spoke to the Greeks. Phasis is a multiple variant language system, just as the Plato dialogues are--and they have not been correctly translated. Schimdt contends that logos is an incorrect simplification of phasis and that the western worldview has structural errors due to its dependency on logos.(90)

 

and then quoting Kingsley:

 

 

..from the point of view of the history of philosophy we are presented with a very different picture of prePlatonic Pythagoreans from the usual stereotype of them as impractical dreamers, their minds fogged and obsessed with number mysticism, who had no 'clear idea of the value of empirical research' because all that interested them was discovering metaphysical principles....Pythagoreans could be far more practical than is usually supposed, sometimes deadly practical. For Plato this emphasis on practicality remained a powerful ideal; and yet, ideals apart, practically speaking it went against the grain of his temperament, his abilities, and against the conditions of the times in which he lived. With him and Aristotle the philosophical life as an integrated combination of practice and perception fell apart at the seams, and another ideal came to predominate instead: 'a new type of man, the unworldly and withdrawn student and scholar'. Certainly there had been partial precedents in the ancient Greek world for this new ideal. But it was only with Plato and Aristotle that it received its most decisive turn, so as to become the defining characteristic of what was to prove the most enduring Athenian contribution to intellectual history: instead of the love of wisdom, philosophy turned into the love of talking and arguing about the love of wisdom.(

[voidisyinyang]

Kingsley documents that the Pythagoreans were the source for Plato's Phaedo, Gorgia and Orphic allegories-even the accurate heliocentric system of astronomy. Plato was "indebted to the Pythagorean oral tradition" and Plato "himself was only too aware of the limitation of the written text as a medium of genuine communication."(132)

 

So you want to debate ideas but Pythagorean philosophy is based on silent meditation! haha.

 

 

...since the publication of Cherniss's work on Aristotle and the Presocratics in 1935 there has been a deeper awareness not only of the fact that Aristotle and his school were frequently capable of misunderstanding the Presocratics at a very fundamental level, but also of the fact that he and his followers systematically used deliberate misunderstanding and 'shameless' misrepresentation as a way of silencing their predecessors.(133)

 

and so Kingsley then notes the role of Archytas for Plato:

 

 

We have already seen evidence of the role played by Archytas' school in reinterpreting-often quite radically-Pythagorean mythological ideas which were current in the generation of Philolaus;...(134)

 

O.K. so the issue here is what specifically is Archytas' fake Pythagorean reinterpretation that Plato then relied on?

 

Ernest McClain and Luigi Borzacchini provide the answer!!

[voidisyinyang]

O.K. so I've now quoted Kingsley stating ARchytas did a "radical reinterpretation" of Pythagorean philosophy.

 

I have stated that Plato relied on Archytas for his Pythagorean FAKE philosophy.

 

So now let's get into the specifics - I have already quoted Burkert - or Michael Hudson quotes Burkert stating Archytas created the Harmonic Mean as the basis for the square root of two.

 

I had stated that Math professor Luigi Borzacchini recognizes this secret music origin of Western math and states the square root of two is a "pre-established deep disharmony."

 

O.K. so OBVIOUSLY Platonic philosophy is the opposite of Pythagorean philosophy.

 

I know it's news to you! haha. Now for the Platonic specifics:

 

“Since 9 actually reduces to a wholetone of 9/8, its cube will reduce to (9/8)³ = 729/512, a Pythagorean approximation to the square root of two, a problem which fascinated Socrates in the marriage allegory.”

 

Ernest McClain, The Pythagorean Plato: Prelude to the Song Itself (Nicholas-Hays, 1978), p. 36

 

 

The necessity of tempering pure intervals, defined by the ratio of integers, is one
of the great themes of Plato’s Republic. In his allegorical form, “citizens”
modeled on the tones of the scale must not demand “exactly what they are owed”
but must keep in mind “what is best for the city.”

 

Ernest McClain, The Myth of Invariance: The origins of the Gods, Mathematics and Music, from the
Rg Veda to Plato (Nicholas-Hays, 1976), p. 11.

 

Not just the content but the form of Plato’s writings were also secretly Pythagorean:

 

 

“The twelve-part structure of the dialogues detected above together with the prominence of the number twelve in Greek music theory suggests that the stichometric structure of the dialogue is a musical scale. Plato used this musical scale as an outline, pegging key concepts and turns in the argument to steps in the scale.”

 

 

John B. Kennedy, “Plato’s Forms, Pythagorean Mathematics, and Stichometry,” Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, 2010, p. 17.

 

Plato promoted compromising the citizens by squaring ratios as proper eugenic breeding of the population – the so-called “nuptial numbers.”

Edited June 13, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[voidisyinyang]

Carl A. Huffman, Archytas of Tartenum: Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician King (Cambridge
University Press, 2005).

 

Huffman argues that Plato and Archytas were host-friends and competitive colleagues --
with Archytas stressing the practical side of Pythagorean harmonics while Plato emphasized the pure philosophy of
Pythagorean Number. Both Plato and Archytas were relying on Philolaus and therefore were not “orthodox”
Pythagoreans.

 

O.K. so now the FAKE PYthagorean philosophy - remember I quoted John Curtis Franklin on the Pythagorean harmonics of the body-mind? Well guess what - no longer!!

 

 

Having discarded music and gymnastics, Socrates proposes considering the
science of “number and calculation” (522C6-7)…. The link between the correct
use of mathematics and the capacity of this discipline to lead to an extrasensible
dimension recalls the link between the correct use of the science of harmony (of
music in general) and the potential of this art to establish a contact with the soul
and supersensible harmony.

 

Francesco Pelosi, Plato on Music, Soul and Body (Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 118

[ralis]

So you want to debate ideas but Pythagorean philosophy is based on silent meditation! haha.

 

 

 

and so Kingsley then notes the role of Archytas for Plato:

 

 

 

O.K. so the issue here is what specifically is Archytas' fake Pythagorean reinterpretation that Plato then relied on?

 

Ernest McClain and Luigi Borzacchini provide the answer!!

 

Borzacchini's books are in Italian. That presents a major problem.

[voidisyinyang]

Borzacchini's books are in Italian. That presents a major problem.

 

Not his article on this subject - he discusses it online on a math forum.

 

I then contacted him in 2001 about a solution I figured out that David Fowler said relies on music harmonics but since Fowler and Borzacchini are mathematicians they could not figure out the solution.

 

So then Borzacchini responded that my math was correct - I sent him a music proof for the solution of the cube root of two as a continued proportion.

 

Then his article did get published finally several years later.

 

 

The question was raised by Arpad Szabo in the II part of his “The beginnings of

Greek Mathematics” (D.Reidel, '74), where he sets out to show how the pre-

Eudoxian theory of proportions initially took place in the Pythagorean theory of

music. He supported this thesis with a deep analysis of the Greek technical terms

of the theory (diasteeme, oroi, analogon, logos, etc.) and their recognition in the

supposedly Pythagorean experimental practice of a string stretched across a ruler,

the so-called “canon,” divided in 12 parts…. Szabo moreover conjectures that

“the concepts of the musical theory of proportions were applied first of all in arithmetic... Furthermore the application of this theory to geometrical arithmetic

contributed towards an understanding of the problem of geometric similarity, and

this problem in turn soon led to the problem of linear incommensurability.” (173-

4)….On the other side the “theory of the logoi,” under the impulse of the music

theory, could have been the main stream of mathematical research, producing the

results of the VIII book of the Elements, the first negative proof of

incommensurability and more advanced geometric applications, as in Archytas'

algorithm to find two mean proportionals.

 

Luigi Borzacchini, Historia Matematica listserve [HM] Music and Incommensurability, Mon, 12 Jul

1999.

 

 

Those Aristotelean and Euclidean characters of continuity which became the right embedding of the theory of incommensurability credibly did not appear before

Eudoxus and probably were fostered by the discovery of incommensurability, and

the Quadrivium in its earlier Pythagorean version (if any) did not know any

discrete/continuous opposition. In other words when music theory paved the road

toward the discovery of incommensurability the idea of geometric magnitude was

too clumsy to develop and even to understand such discovery, and it was exactly

the possibility of the geometric drawing of a not-existent music interval to foster

the development of the Aristotelean continuity.

 

Luigi Borzacchini, “Music and Incommensurability,” Historia-Matematica, August 18, 1999.

Edited June 13, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[voidisyinyang]

For example the passage (fragm.4) where Archytas claims the superiority

of logistic on all the other sciences, geometry included, is rejected by some

authors (W. Burkert included) on the base of a cognitive prejudice: how could a

great mathematician consider a practical art of computation superior to the great

Greek geometry? If however we recognize the possibility that the very idea of

divisible continuous magnitude is far from being 'natural' and that it was before

Eudoxus nothing more than a soup of paradoxes, geometry had consequently to

be little more than its Egyptian and Babylonian models, i.e. simple similitude

properties, superposition techniques to compute areas, figurate numbers and

simple properties of algebraic geometry, some connections between geometric

figures and Gods, plus the first results about squaring the circle and doubling the

cube. On the other side the 'theory of the logoi', under the impulse of the music

theory, could have been the main stream of mathematical research, producing the

results of the VIII book of the Elements, the first negative proof of

incommensurability and more advanced geometric applications, as in Archytas'

algorithm to find two mean proportionals. Here different cognitive hypotheses

give completely different meanings to the same fragment. At the same time I think

that history of cognition (in particular of mathematics) must become an essential

ingredient of cognitive science.

 

Luigi Borzacchini, “Music and Incommensurability,” Historia-Matematica, August 18, 1999.

 

 

(iii) after Dedekind, Cantor, Hilbert, Zermelo, Goedel, Cohen we know that the

Aristotelean and Euclidean continuum admits numerable models, that we can not

give to its modern versions a first order categorical axiomatization, that the

geometrical continuum can not be proved coincident with the numerical one, that

it can not be empirically verified, that the place of the numerical continuum in the

transfinite hierarchy is one of the greatest so far open questions, that it is linked to

the most disputed axiom of set theory, etc.

 

Luigi Borzacchini, “Music and Incommensurability,” Historia-Matematica, August 18, 1999

Edited June 13, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus