Blessings to Sunthar and his tireless service. I now see that Mr. Moore has returned and I am pleased to find research ongoing into the Greek branch of the science of architecture of consciousness, now regarding the Philebus and the darkness that followed Damascius. Certainly for me, it is period of history which is not a pleasant thing to consider for it marks a time of conceptual materialization, where we are now. I have just returned from my stay in Zihuatanejo, Mexico, a small harbor town in southern Mexico which I've been visiting for fifteen years.

It has a marvelous history intertwined with American and European thinkers and artists. (Two of which were Jacques Cousteau et al., particularly Mr. Owen, his photographer who compiled a short history and travelogue; and Dr. Timothy Leary, who in the role of Odysseus, had himself bound to a pier there to experience the unimaginable force of a hurricane, it is readily reported.) But the native artisans, in a very ontologically vibrant way, constantly repeat the Sun-Moon symbol upon every conceivable souvenir as the key to their highest knowledge. They are impatient to be asked about the symbol. Of course the symbol is available to all on Earth for those who are free of thought. It is the symbol of Reflection as it is in India, Europe and Africa. But, it is a symbol which is also substance.

We need not worry that knowledge has been lost. It is there to be recovered at any time. It is in the architecture of experience, the collapse of opposites, and the gentle subduction of static imagery. As I intimated in my message `Flowers', the Greek Philosophers, I believe, serve as a cultural bridge into India for us Westerners. I also said that I had given up the search for absolute origins of ideal or imaginal enlightenment since the `bridge' is best thought to serve both directions. And its availability is ubiquitous by nature.

The Indians, I freely acknowledge, now carry the torch as they, perhaps, always have. I do sense though, that an early juncture of thought lies with Pythagoras and of course the Orphics. 1) The study of the Monochord produced a coherent symbol (and applied science) of Vibration and Harmonics where the Many (diapason, harmonic, tonos, partial) is non-different from the One (monochord under [at-]tention]), and Universal Motion, the First Cause, is non-different from To Ouden or Chaos, the First Object pouring forth. (It is up to us to `destroy' these two in order to find Self.)

In him we see the `Philosopher-empiricist' at work, whose transcendent philosophy `resonates' in physical matter! 2) The geometrical and mathematical development of his realizations gives us the `counting' of ratios down the chord (must I also reveal this symbol-substance) which is the business of yoga, Patanjali, Samkhya and the NeoPlatonists.

But it is most interesting that through Harmonics the transcendent philosophy can be integrated in to our modern western concepts of `science' as the mathematics and modular language have already been worked out, even though these implications are confronted with vehement fear in our institutions. We now have, via acoustics and neuro-science, the concept of `entrainment', an old magical concept re-outfitted for our amazement; but no doubt second-nature to kings, barons, popes and advertising agencies, whose agendas are forever threatened by our beloved understanding. I am very interested to hear your thoughts on Pythagoras, Mr. Moore, at your leisure.

In terms of ethics, Pythagoras seemed to be clear; yet the ethic is somewhat detached from his physical studies. Obviously, Pythagoras, the Philosophers, and the taciturn Mystai, who we shall never know, leave to us such recognition. It is here that I look to the concept of Theatre to explicate the ethical (and sensorially operational) questions. Here again I find no exclusive difference between Greece and India.

The Persians, in fairness to them and the present subject of the group, share in this and our legacy, as the home of magic now called science. Please excuse me if I have brought up an issue already discussed here. In that case a note of reference will do. Welcome back, Mr. Moore.

Sincerely, T. Reedy.