Law of Unity (First Law)

Book: The Wisdom of the Eternal Laws.

After considering the principles, we shall now scrutinize one of the most important fields of Mathesis Megisthe, perhaps the most important of them all: the study of laws, of the logoi qua laws. It is no longer, as before, the logoi arkhai[1] whilst pure possibilities, qua arithmoi arkhai, but of the laws as such, of the laws that (descending from the plane of principles to plane of manifestations][2], effectively rule over all orders of reality.

We reach those laws through speculation – as studied in our previous works. Such speculation is also done with a certain analogy with the Pythagorean thought. It was based on the sacred Pythagorean Decad that we “reconstruct” those laws, reason why we called them the Pythagorean laws. Such ascription does not necessarily have a historical sense, i.e., does not imply that the formulation we give to those laws were, in fact, that that were effective within the Pythagorean school, but we believe it is perfectly coherent with the Pythagorean secret conception of Mathesis.

Since, in philosophy, we only accept the authority of demonstration, it behooves us to not only present those laws, but demonstrate them; and not only demonstrate their validity, but also demonstrate them as fundamental laws of all beings. Nonetheless, we shall not dwell on those demonstrations unless strictly necessary, since we can rely on thesis, arguments and postulates already stated in our previous books.

By saying that the attribution of those laws to Pythagoras has no historical sense, we indicate that it has a logical and doctrinal one. They are perfectly coherent with the Pythagorean thought and, as we have already stated in Pythagoras and the Theme of Number, represent what he could have reached – if he had not actually reached – if he had coherently prolonged the consequences and applications of his thought according to the principles he postulated. Presumably and verisimilarly, we can state that those laws should have been Pythagorean laws. Naturally, a historical demonstration would be impossible, since the works on the esoteric parts of his doctrine has never come to us, if they had been written at all. Supposing they had been written, they can be currently known only via fragments of scattered works by Pythagorean authors. Based on those universally accepted texts, we gathered elements to substantiate the reconstruction of those laws, at least on their ontological and mathetical aspects. Given the coherence of those laws with the doctrine expressed in the referred texts, we can assume that the demonstrations of their validity, as we present it, must be similar to the ones known by the Pythagoreans of the third degree and they should have come to the same conclusion through the development of their thoughts according to the dialectical laws of consequence.

However, the question of historical validity is not our primary interest. What matter is that, Pythagorean or not, those laws are valid. If, throughout the following analyses, we should extract arguments from Pythagorean texts, we must seek, on the other hand, to strengthen our arguments in accordance to our way of considering things (i.e., Concrete Philosophy).

DISTINCTIONS

First and foremost, whenever referring to Pythagoreanism, one should not mistake the arithmoi mathematikoi, which belongs to the inferior triad, with the arithmoi arkhai, of the superior triad[3]. The latter corresponds to the Platonic “forms”, the Augustinian “exemplary ideas”, to the Neopythagorean and Neoplatonic paradeigmata, i.e., to the universal Ideas, eidetically (and not only noetically) considered.

Another important distinction is the existence of two ways – or levels – of considering the logoi, or principles. On one hand, we can consider them as archetypical forms, exemplary ideas, arithmoi arkhai, paradeigmata – or yet as, according to the scholastic terminology, pura possibilia, pure possibilities – and, on the other, as laws or norms that rule and reign over the existing things. In this last case, the logoi are norms not only for their noematic content, but also for the purpose effectively performed. It is of the laws in this effective sense that we shall, herein, discuss.

Those laws – that rule things – constitute what the Pythagoreans identified as the “Sacred Tetrad”, “Tetractys”, also known as Sacred Decad, since the sum of the first four numbers (1+2+3+4) is ten. They called this set of ten laws, the “Mother of all Things”, as referring to the matrix, the source that, ruling, repeats and, by repeating, makes repeat, produces repetition, makes emerge the similar things and the things that, being dissimilar from some, are similar to others. Those ten laws can be identified as Law of One, Law of Two, Law of Three, etc., until the Decad.

  1. Law of Unity

Law of One would, consequently, be the Law of Unity. Now, the principle of all things has to, necessarily, be something positive: if the existing things are positive, their principle ought to be positive. The positive principle, the affirming principle, which testifies itself and positivates itself, is precisely what is called Being. The principle of all positive things is Being. Nothingness cannot be the principle of anything. Unity, as stated before[4], is characterized as indivisum in se et divisum ab alio (undivided in itself and divided from everything else).

Therefore, unity is the law of integral. In all and any form of existence, its being is one. All that is being, all that we can admit as presence or adsence[5], must be a unity. The unity and the being are mutually convertible. Where there is unity, there is being; where there is being, there is unity. The number 1 symbolizes the first law. The one is the first law that rules all things. The law of unity imperiously rules the being, since it is one. Only nothingness is not unitary, since nothingness is nothing.

There is, certainly, a hierarchy of being, a hierarchy of intensist levels[6] of the being; each being participates on the unity according to its own level of intensity, which, by its turn, is “comproportionate” to the nature of each being. But, whatever the level of intensity, all things are unities: on a higher or lower level of intensity, always unities. The law of unity presides over all beings, which participate, thus, in the Supreme Unity of Being.

The utmost unity is the absolute unity of the simple simplicity of the being, of the Supreme Being, which is only being, without deficiency. All that exists depend on the Supreme Being. All unities originates from “It”; all beings participate in this One, participate in the great law of integral, in the Supreme Law of One, that rules all things. All that is finite is unitarily what it is and tends to become an integral part of a unity. No thing happens that is not unitarily (according to higher or lower intensist levels, it doesn’t matter). This law is the supreme logos, the first of all laws: All that is finite is unitarily what it is and tends to become an integral part of a unity.

Now, the arithmetical number 1, the arithmoi mathematikoi 1, symbolizes unity and, therefore, can also symbolize everything that exists, can symbolize all entities in what they have of unitary. The 1 symbolizes all things whilst unitarily considered. Founded on genuinely Pythagorean texts, we can verify that, according to them, the Supreme Being One, which is absolutely simple and which essence and existence are identical, a pure form, a pure logos, is, in the Pythagorean terminology, the “Father”. This “Father”, who is the One considered in itself, generates a “second one”, which is the One considered as operation, as operatio. It is generated by a procession in intra. From this generation in intra emerges the Creator One, which is precisely denominated “Son”.

The Indeterminate Dyad

The same conception can be found in Christianity: the Father and the Son emerge as the symbol of the narrowest of the correlations, since the Son is son of the Father and the Father is father of the Son, so that the affirmation of one is the affirmation of the other.

In philosophical language, the first One, which is the Hen Prote, is existentially and essentially itself, immutable and eternal: the Being whilst Being is absolutely being, immutable and eternal. But this Being is active, it acts, performs, operates. Such “operation” is a second role of the same Being and implies choice, predilection and pretermission (between possibilities), implies, therefore, intellection, intellect. Thus, the Hen Prote, the First One, is pure Will, Wanting, Omnipotence, whilst the Second One, which performs what the potentiality of the First One can, is intellect. The Second One, the Hen Deuteron, the Hen generated from the Supreme Being, has a creative function. This second Hen is what will properly give rise to the so-called Indeterminate Dyad, the Pythagorean Hen Dyas Aoristos. It is a dyadic One, the Son, the Creator, which is the Being whilst it operates, creates. But it is not abysmally separated from the former, since one is the other, but operating on a second function.

Now, why is the Dyad called indeterminate? The dyad is undetermined because determination implies determinability. Our mind is, by nature, abstractive, has the tendency to separate in distinct concepts what, in reality, happens identically (i.e., united, as unity). Now, the indeterminate dyad is characterized by a power to unlimitedly determinate, by an undetermined capacity of determination; and, in turn, determination necessarily implies that something is determined. To have an undetermined determination, is necessary to have a undetermined determinability, i.e., something that can receive unlimited determinations. Which means, each active power must correspond to a passive power; an active potentiality, to a passive potentiality; so, translating it into a Aristotelian language, we can reduce to the following terms: act can always determinate, and potentially is always determined; but an absolute determination is impossible, since it would be an actuality and there would be a contradiction in adjectis, since infinite is the endless power to determinate and, if everything was already determined, the determined would have reach the limit of its determination; moreover, a determining being, as such, if fully actualized in the determined actuality, would reach the quantitative unlimited in actuality, which is absurd. Therefore, the act of determinate implies a limit, the limit of determination, and it limits both the determined and determinable things.

But what is determined is unlimitedly what is determined; what has received a determination is, as such, unlimitedly itself, but limited by what is not it; and is also limited in what it is, since it is until where it is, inasmuch as it is what it is. Thus, the creative action realizes the unlimited, which is, as itself, unlimited itself, but limited by itself inasmuch as only is what it is whither is what it is, and limited by what is not it, which is what it is not yet possible to be. The determined is not limited by nothingness, since nothingness does not limit, has no capacity to limit; it is limited by the own form of the created thing and such limitation consists of possibilities of not-yet-actualized determinations.

As we have demonstrated in Pythagoras and the Theme of Number, the Indeterminate Dyad is potentially infinite and it is all that can be determined; is, simultaneously, the infinite potentiality to determine and the infinite potentiality of being determinate. In this case, the formative act can endlessly determine all that can determine, and the material potentiality, which is passive, can endlessly be determined in all that can be determined. We are dealing with a potential-quantitative infinite and not an actual-qualitative infinite, since the latter, as we know, is absurd. Now, the Indeterminate Dyad has no limits in itself; it is undetermined and unlimited as such, but limiting and determining in its acting. Those two aspects are not independent, since were created by Hen, by “One”, depending on it and not having, hence, the absolute simplicity of the Supreme Being, nor having, this Dyad, Its infinity (of the One), which is eternal. The Dyad has no actual infinity, but only a potential infinity, which is given by the power, by the infinite potentiality, active, to determine without final limit.

We find in this thought the foundation of the Pythagorean “ab aeterno creation”, since the Indeterminate Dyad has no beginning in time, since time would imply determination and determined things. Time starts when the formative act shapes a materiable potentiality. Time refers to limitedly determined things. Thus, the Dyad, which is not eternal since is not tota simul durable, contains the most diverse relations. Hen, therefore, is not temporal, since time can only occur in the succession of the determined things by that generated Dyad; Hen belongs, therefore, to a tota simul duration, whilst the Indeterminate Dyad is not simultaneous in its determinations, but in it occurs a succession, so that the duration of this dyad is sempiternal, happens through a succession, whilst Hen Prote and Hen Deuteron are both eternal.

———

[1] “The logos of an entity is its law of intrinsic proportionality, the reason of its essential form, which synthetically expresses the entire range of possibilities of manifestation of that entity (…)”. (Editor’s Note)

[2] The sentences between brackets were added by the editor of the republished version, Olavo de Carvalho. Such edition has several explanatory footnotes, which we shall translate whenever indispensable.

[3] The superior triad encompasses: 1) the arithmoi arkhai or archetypical numbers that express the supreme principles (object of the three first volumes of the Mathesis’ series); 2) the structures of the real being (the laws studied within the present book); 3) the forms (arithmoi eidotikoi) of the particular real entities. The inferior triad comprehends, also in descending order: 1) the mathematical numbers; 2) the geometric forms; 3) the sensible things.

[4] On his book The Wisdom of Unity.

[5] A term proposed by Suarez, from the latin word adsum, as to substitute presence when referring to the being a se, since presence indicates a relation, a “being in face of other”, such as happens to the being ab alio. God has adsence; we have presence. (Editor’s note)

[6] Or levels of intensity, cf. Lupasco.

Law of Opposition (Second Law)

Actuality and Potentiality

Both the formative actuality and the materiable potentiality are positivities and not mere “nothings”. They are distinguished both formally and in the actualization of an entity. Those two positivities – two positions, two thetic aspects – are put one in face of the other, i.e., a position ob another; therefore, between them, an ob-position. Both are positives, but correlatives, since the capacity of being determinate is the capacity of being determinate by a determinative act; and the determinative act is the act of being of the capacity of determination. In a way that, in this conception, form and matter – as called in Aristotelian philosophy – are correlative and cannot properly occur if separated, in this sense: form is a form that determines.

Much better, then, is to use the expression “actuality and potentiality”. Actuality is the actuality of a potentiality; potentiality is the potentiality of an actuality. Actuality is what determines; is the determinative capacity of the determinable capacity of a potentiality. The determinative actuality to which is not “ob-posit” the possibility of being determined, would lose its power. In a way that the Dyad, qua itself, is a sort of universal substance, is what “sub-exist” in all things, since all things emerge from it. In Aristotelian language, matter is a primary substance, is ousia prote, and form is a secondary matter, ousia deutera. The finite being is the composition of those two positivities. That is also the Pythagorean thesis, with a distinction that substance is only one, a same reality with a twofold capacity to determine – its active aspect – and of being determinate, which is the passive aspect.

Thus, all that is finite is a product of such opposition, and that is the reason why, within the arrangement of the Pythagorean laws, the opposition law comes in second, following the law of unity; it derives from the law of unity, since opposition implies two unities: determinative unity and determinate unity; thence emerges the idea of category. The first Pythagorean category is substance, but substance in a sense of being simultaneously its oppositions, i.e., of being two positivities, which are the formative fact and the materiable potentiality that emerge in any finite being.

Now, this conception is perfectly adequate to the fundamental thought of Aristotelianism, as well as Scholasticism and all well-oriented philosophy. Difficulties that may – philosophically – arise and that should be solved at the concrete part of Mathesis, concern to the distinction between actuality and potentiality, if it is either a real, physical distinction, or not. We adopt the Pythagorean position that there is no abyss between actuality and potentiality, since the finite actuality – that belongs to the beta context[1] – and the potentiality – that only belongs to the beta context in its passive sense – are inseparable and constituted under two different formal aspects, with different functionalities, reason why the Scotists, for instance, affirm this correlative aspect and admit that the actuality corresponding to the beta context (not the actuality of alpha context) is nothing more than the actuality of the potentiality, and potentiality is no more than a potentiality of the actuality.

This discussion should be clarified further on. Beforehand, we know that, for our mathetic conception, it is perfectly clarified, since, in the beta context, which is the context of things ab alio, of finite things, actuality cannot be totally separated from potentiality. Such actuality must be an actuality somehow potential, in an also passive sense, for the contrary it would be a pure actuality and pure actuality can only happen within alpha context, the context of the being a se. The Scotist position, inevitably, must emphasize as fairer and safer than the Thomist one (as a school of thought, of the epigones), not of St. Thomas in particular, since opportunely we shall demonstrate that the legitimate thought of St. Thomas would accept the Scotist solution.

We have now, perfectly established, the two first laws: the law of one (the law of unity) and the law of opposition, that rule all things, including the things of alpha context, since, as we have established, between the Hen Prote and the Hen Deuteron, the two ones, the first and the second ones, exist an opposition, but a transcendental one, not such as the opposition of beta context, in which the limits can be physically determined, whilst in the former (alpha context) is a determination of roles (or functions), since the Father (as generator, the Will, Omnipotence) and the Son (as generate, the Knowledge, the Intellect) are distinguished but, nevertheless, an infinite Omnipotence necessarily implies an infinite Understanding, the Omniscience, which also implies the former, thus forming both the same nature, although with different roles.

Law of Opposition

Now, all that is finite is a product of such opposition between determinative actuality and determinable potentiality. The number 2 symbolizes such law, such logos of opposition. All things of beta context, all finite things, comprise at least two orders of being. There is always an alternation, an opposition, an ordination of its composing elements, of its tectonic. All entities of beta context have a tectonic duplicity, a duplicitous structure. There are always opposite dyads, expressed through pairs of contraries, which constitute polarities, not only of all philosophize but of all of the most primary classifications and human divisions. It is not possible to study any being without considering, at first, its aspect of unity, and, secondly, its dualistic aspect, i.e., the aspect of oppositions within its tectonic or that rules its way of being. Therefore, there is opposition between the active-passive principle of the determinative and the passive-active of the determinate, from where emerges all heterogeneity of finite beings. Determination establishes the limited and the illimitable, since all things are formally unlimited, but materially limited. All things can be visualized under the angle of its unity, as under the angle of its duality; all things can be seen as a bundle of contrary oppositions, as stated by the Pythagoreans. No human knowledge about something is perfect if not studied under the aspects of its unity and its oppositions, dyadcally classified and constitutive of its own being. The two fundamental laws are, therefore: law of unity and law of opposition. Opposites are indispensable, necessary, and – within beta context – absolute. Dyadic rules all things and, at the same time, transcend all finite things.

The fundamental opposition – that manifests in all beings – is the principle of all finite entities. Hence, the opposition is presented as fundamental in Pythagoreanism. The opposites are face to face, one is referred by the other, both correlatives, since the formative actuality is the formative actuality of a materiable potentiality, as the materiable potentiality is the materiable potentiality of a formative actuality. Therefore, both constitute the hipokeimenon in the Greek sense, the ultimate subsistence of the universal substance.

Thus, we have come to the two first laws. Now, from a forming reference between those two, from this relatum, from this “being ab aliud”, this necessary referring of an ab aliquid (to other), a relation is necessarily formed (from the opposition), since those opposite entities are analogized by a common term. Those entities of beta context are opposites that constitute the same reality, thence emerging the third law, the law of relation, also called law of series, which we shall discuss in the next chapter.

——-

[1] “The context of the absolutely simple, in Mathesis, is called alpha context, while the context of the relatively simple and of composts of any specie is called beta context.” (The Wisdom of the Principles, p. 158)

Law of Relation (Third Law)

Book: The Wisdom of the Eternal Laws

There is, subsequently, the law of the series or law of relation. We have previously stated that the opposites are “relative”, are mutually indispensable within the world of beta context, since the materiable potentiality has always a form, what demands a formative actuality, a determination, since the determinative is only determinative when there is a determinable to be determined.

The law of relation is, therefore, fundamental for the created beings, the beings of beta context, since those cannot exist or occur without a correlation between opposites. The finite entity emerges from such correlation, since they are – to use an Aristotelian expression – form and matter.

But it is important to distinguish between relation qua law and other accidental relations that the entity can have with other entities or, in its accidence, the accidents with one another. The relation we refer to is a principial[1] one, from which without it, the being cannot emerge; it is, therefore, an absolute necessity of the being. It is properly a category and, at the same time, a law. It is a category, since it occurs within things and can be classified according to its relative[2] aspects. But it is also a law that rules things of beta context[3].

We cannot know a being without considering it by its unity, its oppositions and its correlations, i.e., the relations that are formed between the opposites. It is necessary to know the emerging relations, that initiate alongside with the beginning of the being, since all dyadic being – a being of beta context, a finite being – is a being that simultaneously begins with its unity, its oppositions and its relations.

In the relations that are formed between the primary oppositions emerge the equilibrium and the disequilibrium, since there is a “semiformed” matter and levels of proportionality that characterize a specific way of being of the thing whilst its specific perfection. Equilibrium and disequilibrium emerge also as categories, subordinate to the opposition; they are subcategories, such as Plato’s macron and micron, which as subcategories of opposition, since macron refers to the maximum determination and maximum determinability, and micron, to the minimum determination and minimum determinability, i.e., the being of minimum determinability is, consequently, the being of maximum determination and, therefore, macron and micron are always jointly in reverse relations. That is the reason Plato referred to the macron and the micron of the indeterminate dyad, which is the minor dyad, the dyad that comes after the Hen Prote and the Hen Deuteron, namely Hen Dyas Aoristos.

———–

[1] Referring to the domain of principles, cf. R. Guénon.

[2] I.e., according various types of possible relations between the composing opposites.

[3] There are also, within alpha context, relations of transcendental character, although in different conditions, various from the rulership way of the entities of beta context.

Law of Reciprocity or Law of Quaternary (Fourth Law)

Book: The Wisdom of the Eternal Laws

The relations within a being of beta context occur in such a way that the opposites are simultaneously active and passive, more or less active or passive, so that the active part of one acts upon the passive part of the other, and vice versa. There is, between them, an inter-action, of which one symbol is the Chinese Yin-Yang. Now, the Yang is not purely active, neither the Yin purely passive; Yang is predominately active-passive and Yin, predominately passive-active. Such inter-action that happens in all finite beings reveals an efficient actuation, however com-proportionate to the nature not only of what is efficient, but also of the efficaciousness of the receiver of determination. The capacity to determine of one is consequently proportionate to the capacity of being determinate of the other. One part is acted upon and the other, naturally, resists. Every determination of beta context beings presents resistance. Clay, as a matter for the brick, offers resistance, a delimiting action upon the form in which the efficient cause tries to imprint in it. Therefore, the fourth fundamental law, the law of interaction, also called law of reciprocity. The analogized opposites, in their relations, do more than inter-actuate: they reciprocate. The law of quaternary symbolizes, in many religious conceptions, the cosmic order – viewed from a material angle. All material things are ruled by those four laws: of one, of two, of three, and of four. Therefore, those four laws constitute the fundamental laws of all material cosmic order. This is one of the definitions or, better said, one of the symbolic contents of the Pythagorean Tetrad.

The law of reciprocity can be observed within all entities in their intrinsic opposition, the opposition that is formed between the analogized opposites that interact, and also in extrinsic oppositions and extrinsic interactions. So that all things can be viewed unitarily in itself, dyadically in its oppositions, ternarically in its series (in its relations and also as beginning, middle and end) and quaternally as a result of opposites reciprocity, all of which interact proportionally to its determinative and determinable capacities. The law of reciprocity rules the primary and fundamental evolution of finite beings, rules the dynamicity of finite beings. As the Pythagoreans called it, it is the “law of fundamental evolution”.

Law of Form or Law of Quinary (Fifth Law)

Book: The Wisdom of the Eternal Laws

Such inter-action of opposites does not only occur as the being initiates, but also throughout the entire process of its endurance. It characterizes what Heraclitus noticed in the becoming of things: the pólemos, a constant fight between – mutually determining – opposites, which generates the intrinsic heterogeneity of the singular being, the finite being. Although, such reciprocity of opposites occurs within a law of intrinsic proportionality of the being. The way of ordaining the parts by their acting and suffering – the way of ordaining the opposites – constitutes the law of intrinsic proportionality, or the law of concrete form, the form of the thing, in re. This is the law of five, the law of form. Every thing that constitutes an unity, that has its opposites, that maintains its relations, and has a reciprocity between the opposites, also has a form, a law (logos) of intrinsic proportionality. Its structure is tectonically constituted by the form the thing is ordained, according to the way of being of its form. Ontically, the thing is composed by what constitutes it, by the opposites that constitute it, but its form reveals the disposition of the logos of it, of its intrinsic proportions. So that the reciprocity of the opposites occurs within the limits established by such law, the concrete form, the form in re, since, if it was not com-proportionate to such form, the thing would suffer or perform per se what is disproportionate to its nature, which is the principle of its action and passion, the active and passive principle. A thing, to be fully comprehended, must be quinarily considered, i.e., must be contemplated according to its ruling law of intrinsic proportionality, since its possibilities and its acting are com-proportionate to its concrete form.

Therefore, we have that the form is a arithmos eidetikos in re, symbolized by the five, the five-pointed star, which is also the symbol of Man, since Man is the entity able to capture such forms, the being that intentionally reach them, in a com-proportionate way to the proper human schematics.

To have a quinary view of a thing is to formally know it, is to know the reciprocity that unfolds from the interaction of its relating opposites, which constitute its substance.

Law of Harmony or Law of Senary (Sixth Law)

Book: The Wisdom of the Eternal Laws

All finite beings constitute an unity, a totality, an arithmos plethos (the arithmos of its totality). Such totality has a cohesion, the power to coact, which coherences its parts, coherences the composing elements of its dyadically opposite structures.

As totality, there is [within the being] a primary function, belonging to the whole, to which subsidiary functions of the opposites are subordinate and that analogizes it to the hipokeimenon[1] of the being. The subsidiary functions are subordinate to the primary function, which abide by the interests of the totality. When the functioning of all parts and the respective subsidiaries subordinate to the normal given by totality, we have what the Pythagoreans called harmony. Harmony is the sixth ruling law of all finite beings and it is symbolized by the hexagram.

The law of harmony is not the result of a symmetry of opposites, but of a subordination of subsidiary functions of the opposites, analogized to a normal given by the whole according to its interest that can naturally have greater or lesser levels of intensity. The harmony observed on a cell or on a living being is greater than the harmony on an artifact, for instance.

Not only the entities unitarily considered constitute harmonic sets, but also, whilst unities, can be elements of totalities, of sets, of systems, in short: of bigger structures, to which they are subordinate. The law of harmony rules over all things and, whenever something breaks such law, the severance is merely apparent, since, once breaking the harmony of a set, the unity starts to integrate the harmony of another set. Thus, the law of harmony that rules the universe of beta context proclaims that the subsidiary functions of the composing elements, ordained within the set of oppositions, work obediently to a normal given by their belonging totality. As, naturally, there are levels of being within the finite things (things of beta context), there are, also, levels of harmony. Disharmony, therefore, does not break the law of universal harmony, but it breaks only a particular one, so the element moves to act within another harmony.

——

[1] Material substratum.

Law of Evolution, or Law of Septenary (Seventh Law)

Book: The Wisdom of the Eternal Law

Harmony also implies a disharmony, as a new harmony in opposition to the former, in a way that the harmonic aspects can oppose one another and disharmony emerges from such opposition. Within substantial mutations and within all types of mutations, one can observe that the law of harmony is obeyed and, once such harmony is broken, the beings – that broke it – are integrated into a new harmony. Therefore, there are true specific leaps, qualitative leaps that occur in the passage from one harmonic state to another. Such passage is symbolized by the law of seven, which is the law of cosmic evolution[1].

As we have to consider each thing concretely by its unitary aspect, by intrinsic and extrinsic opposition, by the relations (series), by the interaction and form, we also have to conceive it as part of a harmony and, subsequently, by the possibilities to break the harmony and become an element of a new form.

——-

[1] Evolution not in the Darwinian sense, or, as Mario puts it, “not in an axiological sense”, i.e., of a passage from a “worse” to a “better”, but as a passage from a “anteriority” to a “posteriority” (not in a temporal sense, though, but logical, ontological and mathetical).