Hi barbitone

Thanks for your reply. Albeit a short one 

Well, maybe you summed up exactly what I needed to know, but I'm not quite able to understand it yet and need to look at it more carefully.

So, would you say that in Marko Rodin's system there are also these "double polarities"? Would you say double polarities is an expression we can use, or is that maybe not so correct? Generally speaking, double polarities is a bit of an unusual concept, isn't it?

My approach to the whole thing is this body type system that I've studied for a long time -http://www.astralis.it/gauq.htm - I learned it while in a particular "Fourth Way" school/group - and there I learned about these active/passive + positive/negative polarities in the body types, and I feel that it's right, somehow, though it's hard to explain exactly how and why it is so.

Please, if you will, could you post some illustrations that explain better what you said in your last post? I'm not familiar enough with Rodin's system/terminology to visualize these things in my mind yet.

.................................................. .

Yup, maybe you said all there is to say, but I still can't understand it yet.

Let's compare the two systems: the body type enneagram put into this symbol of seven circles - with the binary code, which Rodin works with, put into the same symbol:

1. 

2. 

Oh yes! I see it works out now! 

In diagram 2: blue=positive, red=negative, plus=active, minus=passive.

And in diagram 1 it is: blue=active, red=passive, plus=positive, minus=negative.

But please, if you can say more about it, please do. 

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

In Gurdjieff's enneagram, when we use it for the body types, the triangle simply represents the attraction and union between the maximum-attraction types.



Draw a straight line between Saturn and Lunar (numbers 8 and 1) (=9)
A line between Jupiter and Mercury (numbers 7 and 2) (=9)
A line between Mars and Venus (numbers 5 and 4) (=9).

The triangle in Gurdjieff's enneagram represents several things, but most of all the cosmic Law of Three Forces: affirming, denying and reconciling. Or: +, -, =.
Contrary to what Rodin says it must be a triangle, and not just two lines going down from the 9. Well, maybe in Rodin's symbol it's right to do it that way, but not in the enneagram as taught by Gurdjieff.

The six-pointed shape in the enneagram represents The Law of Seven, or The Law of Octaves. These are the two fundamental cosmic laws and together they create all phenomena.

Perhaps we can say - that the law of octaves, or the sequence 142857, works in time. While the law of three, the triangle 3-6-9, works outside of time. And it is very diccicult, if at all possible, for us to point our finger and say "there is the 3" or "there is the 6 (or 9)." As the triangle has such an incredible, magical quality. But the points, or notes, in the octave we can pinpoint and say "there it is!"



I talked to Marko Rodin on Skype for over an hour about a year ago. Or rather - he talked to me.  He he. I'm not 100% sure yet, but it seems that all of Rodin's calculations could be done with 142857 instead of 124875. That's what he told me, at least. We "disagree" about the triangle - Rodin says 3 and 6 can not be connected - but for me that's no problem. As Rodin has a very different approach to the enneagram than I have, or rather, Gurdjieff had. But we do agree that the triangle, or 3-6-9, are special points where connections to other enneagrams and "higher dimensions" are made, and through which energy is "pumped into" the enneagram from outside.

Question: Has Rodin said anything about intervals? Has he at all talked about 124875 as an octave? I didn't have time to ask him that. You see, in Gurdjieff's enneagram there's also the octave do-re-mi-fa-sol-la-si-do, with intervals between mi and fa, and between si and do. However, these tones cannot be "translated" into the numbers 142857. Must be looked at in a separate enneagram.

Wellwell. It's an incredibly big topic, and it's difficult enough to study one version of this topic/problem/model-of-everything. But at the same time I think studying two such different versions of the same model can help our understanding. And one system can help to validate the other.

Oh, I talk too much.