Thelema Bill, ... hmm, yes, sefirot=numbers of course, so Spheres wouldn t be apt for the ToL. If we were talking Gnostic Aeons , or even a purelyMessage 1 of 107 , Sep 10, 2007View SourceThelema Bill,
On 09/09/2007, Bill Heidrick <heidrick@...> wrote:
> At 11:57 AM 9/9/07 +0100, "Jake Stratton-Kent"
> >LOL - have yet to meet a species of qabalah that would confine itself
> >to a single pigeon hole. Since we aren't relying on pigeons anyhow
> >maybe we need condor or albatross holes. ;-)
> Worse than pigeon holes is "spheres" in place of "sephirot".
hmm, yes, sefirot=numbers of course, so 'Spheres' wouldn't be apt for the ToL.
If we were talking 'Gnostic Aeons', or even a purely astrological tree
- such as Regardie advocated towards the end of his life - 'Spheres'
could be more appropriate.
In other words, so long as the Hebrew system is *not* the model for a
specific (shall we say hypothetical?) 'qabalistic' system 'Spheres'
might easily be suitable.
> Regardie was fond of the "pigeon hole" metaphor, and far too many people
> juggle those spheres instead of counting the numbers.
agreed, reappraising Regardie recently as it happens, the way he
disses academics in his essay on the Bacchae is not setting a good
Obviously can't fault the man in general terms, his contributions are
way too extensive (though his audio-rendition of the Bornless Rite
was, uh, expletive deleted).
<snipped entertaining analogical portrayal of Bill's desk>
> The idea of simple sorting misses the essential of internal relations of
> divisions. The Tree is far more than that.
absolutely, the 'pigeon hole' or 'filing cabinet' analogy is way too
static, not to mention mechanistic - generally unappealing to more
> >Take Abulafia, he covers ecstatic qabalah, literal qabalah, practical
> >qabalah *all at once*. Guess that's why we occasionally talk of
> Since those divisions really are Goyish and not Jewish, I can't say I'm
Divisions aren't that watertight either side of the covenant. Either
way, Practical and Literal seem to me more or less identical (given
suitable parameters, as in Abulafia), others see 'em as completely
separate but are probably parroting something they read (as second
rate 'authorities' often do!). ;-)
> Abulafia was a sort of Chokmah Nestorian,
a wha? ;-)
Nestor means a couple of things to me, but can't quite connect either to him.
> more Kabbalist than
> Qabalist. His Kuibble-AHYH is not quite the same as a quibble-alah.
agreed, <slapping own wrist for loose use of terms>
> >The modern tendency to describe Qabalah itself as a pigeonholing
> >system, (with gematria a subset involving 'word association by
> >numbers') also tends to become reductionist, or at least doesn't cover
> >all the bases that interest me.
> Even in that limited approach, we need more.
The Tree naturally
> predisposes to division into 10, 22 and 32 categories, with the 10 being
> static and the 22 dynamic, nouns v. verbs or states v. methods.
> that, you can easily do four (worlds), three (mothers, columns, supernals),
> seven (doubles, lower, horizontals),
and Palaces, always liked them ;-)
twelve (simples) and various ways of
> five. If you want more than 32, you can start nesting trees within
> sephirot. You suit your division to the level of simplicity or complexity
> of your subject and approach (for something like a 2,000 piece jigsaw of an
> outdoor scene, you have a lot of color and shapes to organize, but for an
> all-white puzzle you just concentrate on grouping by basic shapes and
> edges). More material, more categories. More abstract, fewer categories.
> Aristotle liked twelve.
All true of the Tree. Regarding possible alternatives latent in the
Thelemic canon: a lot of Crowleyan ritual structure points to 13,
easily accomodated (in theory at least) by an alphabet of 26
characters. (See Circle Diagram in MTP and similar in 963, with
addition of other 13 fold symbols etc.)
> This only works well by the "outline principle" -- the Tree is not a set
> of boxes alone but a hierarchical and interrelated set of ten absolute
> ideas, the Sephirot (plus elaborations). Memorizing names or key words for
> the Sephirot only gets you started. You have to develop pure concept on
> those baubles. Otherwise they will congest like my desk, and only be
> available for limited sorting.
you said a mouthful Bill ;-)
> >> Curious that the Simplex seems only to work consistently for Latin
> >> alchemical terms. That's a potential point in an argument for artificial
> >> spelling to force number association.
> >could be, and a 'myth' of a 'college of rabbis' or 'secret chiefs in
> >council' formulating the language often comes along with that notion
> >in its various guises. Oddly enough, in English Qaballa, SECRET CHIEF
> >and ENGLISH ALPHABET have the same value, 187.
> At that, different languages or approaches give different associations to
how nice to hear someone else say that for a change! ;-)
this was my only major criticism of D.A.Hulse's 'Key of it All', you
can't really compare most alpha-numeric symbols from different
systems. Some techniques and insights cross over, the gematrias are
another matter entirely. Naturally you can compare categories (like
Agrippa's Scales), but gematria values from one language to another,
>The symplex number meanings probably do>n't match your EQ,
nope, not at all. In my experience Greek and Hebrew gematrias don't
converge much either. (Have three volumes of Greek gematria notes, so
I'm not guessing!)
>neither do they match the Greek or Hebrew. Of the seven entries presently in my
> Hebrew number dictionary for 187, none fit those two for the EQ:
not surprising, points of convergence are fairly rare. Where it is
more apparent is in Crowley's 'Thelemic' use of 'Hebrew', EQ
emphasises some of those key numbers.
> >With a restricted vocabulary - say the vocabulary of AL - a smaller
> >number range is by no means an inhibiting factor. That over
> >opinionated but under informed types tend to miss this point when
> >rushing in with their critiques never ceases to amaze and amuse.
> >Present company excepted of course ;-)
> True, the vocabularies of AL and of Alchemy are not so small as to be
> completely useless for number hunting.
far from it in the former case. Incidentally, having mentioned 13 as a
possible scale for Thelemic qabalistic models, the longest single word
in AL has 13 letters, and happens to be CIRCUMFERENCE (at very least
suggesting a natural limit). Opinions are divided on whether the
vocabulary of AL or of all Class As should contribute to a base line
Index. I tend to prioritise AL, but consider the other texts at least
hypothetically important to EQ. Even so, 'pure' EQ includes the
gematrias of the Signs and Planets alongside the Class A vocab.
> >In any case, as with many other systems, means of extending the number
> >range aren't absent.
> One can always go to phrase.
or value 'in full', or 'counted well' etc. etc.
> >> Amateurs have more time for innovation and native inter-disciplinary
> >> predilection anyway.
> >yup, guess we both see ourselves in that light. ;-)
> Trouble is, there ain't a lot of money in it. ;-)
Nope, occult researchers need a day job or frugal tastes ;-)
<snip of comparative data illustrating non-equivalence of systems>
> N.B., for more Hebrew Gematria, go here for the master table:
> Any chance to put up or link to something like that for EQ gematria?
That's dashed decent of you old chap! ;-) Shall have a dig around and
see if I can turn up something specific to that purpose. Thanks,
93 all, In a message dated 10/4/2007 4:14:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... 93 93/93 Camlion ************************************** See what s new atMessage 107 of 107 , Oct 4, 2007View Source93 all,
In a message dated 10/4/2007 4:14:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> The Sight and Quatraining turned on a Nu Light in Hrumachis &made Bleary &:::lol::: Quatrain? Where have I heard that word before? ;)
> Dreary Cloud somewhat blue, because Glad was with Sad instead of Dreary, and
> Bleary wanted to be with Glad too.
See what's new at
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]