Pythagorean dialectic: the Akousmatikoi

Ever heard of the Akousmatikoi?

You should.



Pythagoreanism developed at some point into two separate schools of thought:The “akousmatikoi” (or “listeners”), who focused on the more religious and ritualistic aspects of Pythagoras‘ teachings and the “mathematikoi” (or “learners”), who extended and developed the more mathematical and scientific work he began. The akousmatikoi claimed that the mathematikoi were not genuinely Pythagorean, but followers of the “renegade” Pythagorean Hippasus (c. 500 B.C.) The mathematikoi, on the other hand, allowed that the akousmatikoi were indeed Pythagorean, but felt that they were more representative of Pythagoras‘ real views.”

There were 2 pythagorean schools. Which school are you?



5 responses to “Pythagorean dialectic: the Akousmatikoi

  1. BRIAN: Are you the Akousmatikoi People’s Front?

    REG: Fuck off!

    BRIAN: What?

    REG: Akousmatikoi People’s Front?. We’re the People’s Front of Mathematikoi! Akousmatikoi People’s Front. Cawk.

    FRANCIS: Wankers.

    BRIAN: Can I… join your group?

    REG: No. Piss off.

    BRIAN: I didn’t want to sell this stuff. It’s only a job. I hate the OWO as much as anybody.

    PEOPLE’S FRONT OF MATHEMATIKOI: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.

    REG: Stumm.

    JUDITH: Are you sure?

    BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the OWO already.

    REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.M., you’d have to really hate OWO.

    BRIAN: I do!

    REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

    BRIAN: A lot!

    REG: Right. You’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than OWO are the fucking Akousmatikoi People’s Front.

    P.F.M.: Yeah…

    JUDITH: Splitters.

    P.F.M.: Splitters…

    FRANCIS: And the Meritocratic Popular People’s Front.

    P.F.M.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters…

    LORETTA: And the People’s Front of Mathematikoi.

    P.F.M.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters…

    REG: What?

    LORETTA: The People’s Front of Mathematikoi. Splitters.

    REG: We’re the People’s Front of Mathematikoi!

    LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

    REG: People’s Front! C-huh.

    • hailz my king

      hahaha… fits. kind of. thx for your really humouros “monty python special” – these MF still rule



  2. Well this is gonna be a bit of a long comment. Utthmm

    Regarding how the universe works mathematically; it all starts with zero which is found through the Ontological God equation known as Eular’s Identity:
    e i π + 1 = 0
    In this equation e is the base natural logarithm, i is an imaginary complex number and π represents infinity. This imaginary number interacts with the real number 1 in order to produce 0.
    This formula has a wide application for understanding the motion of any type of wave, including light. It can also be used to define zero; the base unit of existence. This unit is known as a monad and has a tight set of 3 logical requirements:

    1.) Rationality – This basis must be rational.

    2.) Indivisible – This bases can’t be divided since it’s infinitely small.

    3.) Law of Energy – It can’t be created or destroyed; only transformed into more complex energy.

    0 is perfect since all numbers are rational. It’s an infinitely small unit that can’t be divided. It also can’t created or destroyed; only transformed into more complex energy, via higher or lower numbers.
    Zero is abstractly nothing, yet ontologically something. This something ontologically is energy, specifically zero. If we turn zero into energy this is what we get:

    (-10, -9, -8, -7, -6, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7, +8, +9, +10)

    0 is the point generator & balance point of all positive or negative numbers. Negative numbers; -1 and down have negative mass, and positive numbers +1 and up have positive mass. This makes zero a massless point.
    Zero IS also the center of the event horizon of a black-hole.
    The whole material universe is defined by the equation (r > 0) where the radius r is the distance from the center of a black-hole.
    (r = 0) is where the radius equals the center of a black-hole.

    (r > 0) is made up of 3 real dimensions; a 3D space made of finite real points.
    (r = 0) is made of 3 imaginary dimensionless time; we’ll call this 3DiT. It’s made of infinite imaginary points.
    3D and 3DiT combine to create a dimensional & dimensionless universe model. (r > = 0). This universe model is composed of both imaginary & real points resting on a cartesian time grid. The only thing moving on this grid is Energy and Mass; Space & Time stands still.

    In fact the model of the Universe itself looks like a universal Torus, formed out of the Cartesian Grid with infinite monads as Cartesian Coordinates.
    A White-hole Singularity and a Black-hole Singularity represent Zero and Infinity. The White-hole represents Zero and the Black-hole represents Infinity (As referenced in the Riemann Sphere Model)
    In the model the Universe is constantly moving. While Space and Time are static, all energy is dynamic.
    The Gravitational Force from the black-hole and White-hole create an infinite cycle of death and rebirth – I.e Physical Matter -1 and +1 are created in the White-hole and is destroyed in the Black-hole. In this instance everything returns to 0.

    Our Place in the Universe:

    In the Model, our cluster is located near the the Wormhole; The Milky Way Galaxy and other galaxies around are slowly accelerating towards the Black-hole Event Horizon. This explains why we observed the universe accelerating and galaxies slowly moving away from us.

    • hi there
      the torus universe must be wrong. it is a constant model. after reaching the omega point via souls/monads/universe, GOD, there will be nothing left. Until GOD decides to do the divine suicide again, to create a new universe, based on all expierence made since forever.

      • Well I’ll reread the God Series to see if the mathematical proof holds up.
        I’m still a bit skeptical, maybe it’s also cause I don’t like the idea of a universe that resets itself after “becoming god” – I.e achieving perfect mathematical symmetry.

        I’m making a book that’ll go into further detail about the torus model and how it’s compatible with Ontological Mathematics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s