THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.pagan.magick,alt.tarot,alt.divination From: haraSubject: Tarot Comparisons, Da'ath/Knowledge/Wisdom Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:41:17 GMT 50030715 viii om shalom alechem, my kin. malkuth27000 of the Sacred Landscape Elist: > There is no reason to regard the older as the better. yes there IS reason. the older is more often tried and tested. the older is more likely to be valuable if it has sustained value to generations over time without evidence of varying considerably. there is of course also reason to regard the older as less valuable, but your generalization only holds so far, and may serve merely to support abandonment of the older as unworthy of attention prior to providing a new development. I would agree, however, that just because something is older this doesn't make it ipso facto better. > Rather the original as the correct, wihtin the bounds > layed by that original. in terms of number mysticism, I don't know how you can determine what is "correct" except to match it up with the real world, which is the reason that the Sacred Landscape List exists -- because too often people are floating off in fictions and fantasies without ties to the land, nature, and what we can demonstrate actual by pointing directly to it (even if it's changing while we're doing the pointing). you and I are doing that now, but at least adhering to some of the grey areas. :> what is the determinant of "originality" in such contexts? does original mean that someone changed something so as to produce something we haven't seen before, or something that never existed before? or ? it isn't entirely obvious. with respect to Tarot and sefirotic trees there's what might be called originals, and we may benefit from seeing of what they are composed. my interests have certainly veered in that directly in the creation of symbolism with which I might conduct magical operations, and I thought it beneficial to see what others have made before me so that I might pirate their art. > SOmetimes not even this term applies. A so called > plagiate turns out to be just really an improved > version of an original and so a new original by itself. if something is a version of something else, isn't the first the original, and the second a variation on the same theme? the next edition, etc.? i.e. the second isn't original excepting in its actual variation from the original, however valuable that original might be. this is the reason software retains the same name and goes up in number by increment corresponding to the level of its novelty. 'Netscape 4.0' is still the same program (not original), but it is newer and has more bells and whistles than 3.0 or 2.0. if someone created something completely original based on the Netscape program, it wouldn't be Netscape any more. > To me it's intrinsic, that wisdom received today may > be more developed than it has been some thousand years > ago. interesting. I tend to think that knowledge is what is received because it may be accrued and human beings and the mind of consciousness reflective of it are not immortal and grow, mature, then die, multiform, like waves of humans dropping by and coming to apprehend the knowledge and refine and improve it while they're alive. whereas wisdom is not really received at all, but rarefied by careful processes of mystical discipline. wisdom is something beyond what may be received, implying 'an ear that can hear ', 'an eye that can see ', etc. knowledge is received and it may be wise, but its quality of wisdom cannot be seen for what it is unless one has sufficiently prepared for it. gleaning some value from the wisdom may entail a scientific process of trail and error, learning what knowledge is wise and what knowledge is unwise, for example, and characteristics of each of these such that one may recognize them. > However today it may be perturbed by more 'noise'. indeed. that rarefaction process may be impeded by the tumult of social activity sometimes seemingly difficult to avoid. on the other hand, this noise poses a kind of ordeal or obstacle which might strengthen the persistent. the old 'what does not kill us makes us stronger' maxim. > The tarot deck you mention seems to be very special. quite! I'm just making it! of course I'm following on tradition and perverting it somewhat. ;> > Besides, the 15th letter is Samekh. depends on the Aybeecee set, don't it? not everyone believes in the specialness of Hebrew or Greek or Babylonian where letter-sets are concerned. in mine, the 15th *letter* is O, but the Keys are sometimes identified by a Roman Numberal cypher 0(!) through XXII or more, which places the XV in the Plebeian Tree at P, Foe (though I don't believe the Roman Numerals are worthy of continued usage and have left them off of my sefirotic tree). saying 'the 15th letter is ' is a kind of cultural dogma which need not adhere within the use of sefirotic trees or gematria or Tarot. after all, the 15th letter is also Dad (Arabic), and Omicron (Greek) or II (p, Russian). once we're introducing card games to mysticism, why not there- after introduce variation in the Aybeecees too?! > The tower and the chariot are attributed to words > and speech. Foe (/Devil) is attributed to Capricorn in the Plebeian Tree. Cart to Cancer. these are not just words, they are configurations of things, stars, that are given meaning in constellation that also seem culturally-derived. > Da'at is not. depends on the source. sometimes people refer to 'the Lower 7 Sefirot' as Da'ath, in which case it would not be "beyond words". as such the Plebeian Tree's *upper* 7 Numbers would probably be Da'ath. there seems to be an array of cosmologies which are implied by this semi-sefira. > The Chariot is travelling the abyss, however perhaps not > necessarily da'ath. More likely you get accross there on > the path of gemini. it's funny you say this. it directly applies also to the Plebeian Tree, though I'm as yet unsure how to know when the Abyss is involved and when it is not. is it merely the space between the first Triad and the rest of the sefirotic tree? are there variations on this too? when did the concept of the Abyss arise and within whose expression? of course, in the Plebeian Tree the path travelled for Gemini is between Numbers 3 and *4* rather than 3 and 6. if there are hundreds of sefirotic trees, how can we be sure which one is best to use? not only do trees and their structure vary, but also do that which is ascribed or attributed to their structure vary too. Occult Tarot is filled with variation on decks and the symbolism that is contained within decks. all of these could and would indeed be mapped differently to a variety of differing circle-path constructions. it gives one quite a bit from which to choose in playing with them. personally, I don't *trust* tradition for what I want to use these tools. my impression is that what is received is not really *geared for me*, but for others, and maybe for other processes. for this reason I have to basically start over again, using the remains of the cultures that I'm encountering. magicians sometimes destroy tradition in favour of novel constructs or improvements that have important qualitative difference. some say "all the old rituals are black" (i.e. of unknown value and quite possibly detrimental to our continued use) and set about not so much 're-inventing the wheel' as taking bits and pieces of what are *called* wheels and seeing what works best to affext to one's vehicles' axles. > Another relation to Ain is the Ain in the word. > This is not a battle. so you say Ayin and I say Pee. where do we go from here? you say Lovers and I say Chariot. you say Kircher-style Tree and I say Nigris-style Tree. you say your favorite Tarot and I say one that I am making up right now. how do we derive something meaningful from an interchange on this subject that isn't based mostly on personal reflections without value to others in the forum and to knowledge sets that are, effectively, arbitrary? I'm not trying to dissuade you here. sefirotic trees and number mysticism are interesting to me and topical in the Sacred Landscape List, however much it might annoy the traditionals who want *real Kabbalah* (which these are not from what I can tell, when they include such things as Tarot), or the mathophiles who want the square root of 1 or 2 or 3-Order-Magic-Square Lo Shu instead of counting numbers from 1 to 10 and sefirotic trees. :> do we have a common language if I've corrupted what has been passed along as traditional which was not, but was actually a corruption of mystical fragments and half-understandings? does your Capricorn-Devil-XV- Ayin-26 equate to my Capricorn-Foe-XV-P-26?? does their geometrical and letter-centered orientation make a difference as to their meaning, or to their correctness in some way? is the traditional Kircher- style sefirotic tree (or its comparable Hebrew-based constructs) with 22 paths somehow more valuable than my tetraktys with 26? I'm curious. peace be upon you, hara nagasiva@luckymojo.com ==================================== Orig-To: sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com ~Subject: Tarotic Comparisons, Applications, Testing 50030717 viii Dan Washburn from the Sacred Landscape List in response to the foregoing: > ...with all these epistemological uncertainties don't > we have to turn to a pragmatic theory of truth? of course not. :> we could retain our dogma and call that truth. in terms of communication, etc., then whoever agrees with our axioms ('self-evident truths') become our conversation partners. besides, by implication, and through parallelling the tools, I think in some cases there are means to translate symbol- systems such that a deeper conversation is possible, though the rough spots would have to be worked out between those who are attempting to converse. in the case of the Devil-XV-Ayin-Capricorn as compared with Foe-XV-P-Capricorn, the differential is letter-based. it's the rest that remains the same (and not through the whole Trumps I'd guess, but within most of the traditional Trumps). comparing Trees and seeing how they differ might give us some insight into the way a translation may be possible. this is in part what I *do* associate with kabbalistic enterprises: analysis of several systems and comparing and contrasting their various qualities and characteristics in the light of our understanding what what they each seem to imply about the cosmos. > Which tree/tarot deck is producing good magical results? I'm not sure that this is easily discerned, especially via the internet and with the current level of reflective scrutiny that is associated with religion, mysticism, and occultism. also, I haven't really applied the Plebeian Tree (or even yet understood all its facets) sufficiently to being to try to apply it in magical rites yet. part of what I'm doing in discussing it is trying to come to grips with what it should include beyond the Letters, Attributions, and Tarot Trumps (a few new Trumps require my additional investigation beyond what would ordinarily occupy a student apprehending tradition). my focus at present is what the Numbers mean, why they should have the names that they do. tradition isn't enough of an incentive for me to merely allow translations to stand for their names. I tend to like 11 -- Knowledge, but as you can see, I'm interested in a debate about what it means, how it applies to the rest of the Tree and what it all implies, particularly in light of emanation theories and Tarotic or Number symbolism. > mystical experience > prophesy variation of genetics and circumstance may influence results for these in combination with technology. > wealth > love > finding lost objects > invisibility > conjuring up spirits there's the strict magic :> > Any luck with these (or others) for either of you? there's the rub, is it 'luck' or is it something that may be easily associated with the use of the technology? for my part, of the list above only 'mystical experience' has been my aim, and that using methods that do not result from, but *produce* the Tarot and sefirotic construct that I'm discussing. I'm working from the premise that what is the focus of meditative and mystical construction will also be conducive to recreating it in others, or inspiring beneficial internal results based on my insights into the mechanism of focussed meditation or contemplation and the objects of that focus (as with sefirotic trees/tarot/etc.) and what they inspire. > Or are you wandering lost on the path of hodos chameleonos, > having a good time with your symbol systems. I don't know where that path is, never heard of it. :> I don't think that I'm lost, far from it, but I do think that your list above is not really my aim. rather, my aim is what I call spirituality or mysticism, and helpful results from focal constructs and divinatory devices with certain qualities that I'm attempting to integrate into tradition where I find it lacking. this is something that the Golden Dawn did once or twice in its A) Cypher Manuscript location of the Fool at the beginning and B) the GD-SWITCH of the Strength and Justice Names and Pictures after the manuscript made this possible. other occultists have attempted to improve upon the same, such as Crowley, but I do not find their improvement to be persuasive or conducive to the results that I value (integrity, clarity of experience, internal insight, and a reflection on the natural, real world). nagasiva ================================================================ Orig-To: sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com ~Subject: Re: Symbol-Mysticism, Knowledge and Wisdom 50030715 viii om shalom alechem, my kin. hara: #> the [Plebeian] Tree confirms your assertion about the #> XV being FOE -- P [/Devil].... using English letters #> rather than Hebrew.... XV being the equivalent of Devil).... malkuth27000 of the Sacred Landscape Elist: # Show me that tree. I wanna see it. you can find it described in http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/plebe/tarosymbolismatrix.txt with a reference to a GIF I created to which I constantly refer (to which I made recent refinement of path-overlay). I've begun calling it the Plebeian Tree after this final (?) change and discerning the historical restructuring that was established by Mackenzie and Crowley (in the Cypher Ms. and "The Book of Thoth" respectively). the Plebeian School of QBL has long been a waiting shell into which I was to toss all of my creations of this nature. I understood the need to give the Tree a label when setting about constructing text of a *dogmatic nature* in comparison to traditional sources. ;> # If devil is P it perhaps just has the magician at alef # and fool at shin. I know completely to what you refer, but this is not the case. you are speaking of the pre-Mackenziean attribution scheme that has the Fool between cards Judgment/Aeon and World/Universe. this attributes it the letter Shin in Hebrew-based sefirotics. no, in the Plebeian Tree the Fool is placed at the beginning of the Trump, as was directed by Mackenzie's papers and thereafter taken up by the Golden Dawn in Book T and elsewhere. this is from where Crowley obtained the placement, and where I found it myself (in the "Thoth" deck). # rest may be the same as further clued by the zodiacal signs. # this may be not a "plebean tree" (i have searched internet # but did found just your page which was not informative on # this), sorry it wasn't informative. I'd be happy to provide additional instruction as to its composition in a proper venue. I've done this in Tarot-L and usenet already and am content to refine my own understanding through repeated descriptions. you won't find it elsewhere, since it is a novel construction in some ways. people like John Opsopaus have put together a Pythagorean Tarot, which I found immensely inspirational in some respects, but they didn't so identify their Tree as Plebeian. I've only just done so as a measure of my confidence in its resistance to my assaults in persistently attempting to refine it. :> # but just the aka mathers/levi. Using english # letter symbols may be interesting, while the fool at shin # may be wrong to stick with cause it's perhaps lacking # order and essence. indeed. I'm of a mind to follow the GD and Crowley on this in particular as when there is a designation of Fool as 0. I have found no need to give Roman Numerals to the Trumps, and benefit from omitting them because of changes I've made that might make the appearance of them immediately confusing to me at this stage of my understanding of it, but 0 prior to I was always conceptually logical to me. much moreso than XX 0 XXI! # The fool zero no-thing (tohu va bohu, BeLIMaH), next # card 1 by beth gematria 2, followed by card 2 gimel # gematria 3 is made so by intent. indeed, I don't find this very convincing or elegant. it has always seemed to me that the Letter given to the Trump ought to resonate with any number given, and that this was a left-over of having transformed a card game into an occult and/or QBListic lattice. # This is on one hand the essential "zen koan" part of # the tarot and on other hand e.g. symbol for "1" is # essentially the same as symbol for Beth (compare # with a serifed font). interesting. # On third hand the PFC = Paul Foster Case = Bota deck # regards the symbolic appearance and similarites to # hebrew letter meanings among them for the cards (e.g. # gimel has been drawn as a curve like 2 compared to 1, # which is beth that has been drawn as an arrowhead). # While actually the third hand is the first and # the others cycle around like juggling, the essence # is the truth. I'm not convinced of the truth as yet, but I do find it valuable to examine the *English Letters* for this kind of numerical resonance. there are aspects of the Letters that have numerical components, for example. the A has 1 cross-beam, the B has 2 loops. only the H amongst the first set of Letters is anywhere close to the Arabic numbers (H/8). that some of them (e.g. C) have been duped for Roman Numerals is amusing. # I'll read the rest and comment after having seen # the plb tree. k00l! I look forward to that, even if it is to say that the uniqueness and unusualness of the Plebeian Tree is not yet worth your time to consider. :> as I was trying to make clear, my questions to you were an attempt to examine the bases for both tradition and communication in what might be described as a completely *arbitrary* symbol-set. were we to find a common ground, it might be interesting to examine how that plays out in speaking about sefirotic trees and Tarot amongst a diversity of constructions. thanks. hara nagasiva@luckymojo.com END
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|