Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, 333 wrote:
> >> That the patterns used by this hypothetical demiurge probably bore no
> >> literal resemblance to the ten digits and twenty-two letters of the Hebrew
> >> alphabet is readily acknowledged by modern Qabalists.
> as the Wizard has indicated, your supposition of a demiurge doesn't really
> lend any greater support to the Words-By-God literalism presupposed a
> goodly number of (at least Hermetic) qabalists.
You are reading me too literally. The context from which the above quote
was drawn was an assertion that the doctrines of the Sepher Yetzirah are
best considered as an attempt by humans to construct a descriptive model
of creation after the fact. It is inevitable, given the inability of the
human mind to create but only to permute, that such a description would be
built out of symbols derived from the now-manifest world, and therefore
would be anachronistic. In other words, *any* human attempt to describe
events that occurred at least partially outside of spacetime, and which
predate the formation of Yetzirah, and therefore the very symbol-sets we
use to describe such things will suffer from the same flaws Tim finds in
the Qabalistic creation myth.
Materialist physics avoids these flaws only by stopping short of
considering what in Qabalistic language would be called the movement of
the Lightning Stroke from Binah to Chesed. In other words, physics plays
it safe by ignoring half the question.
> almost every one of the Golden Dawn and OTO members (so attested) that
> I've met and who lectured me on how oh so important it was for me to
> learn Hebrew and use the tarot "the way it is supposed to be used"
> have also maintained that the cosmos was spoken into being in Hebrew
> and by their Creator God, literally.
Having (by choice) no affiliation with the GD or OTO, I can't answer to
> if you want to shift that back and say 'it wasn't Hebrew but it was
> some other language' I'm not really sure that helps support your
Again, I'm not saying it was a language at all. I'm saying that the human
description of it is an attempt to create a linguistic description that is
analogous to what was by nature a non-linguistic event, and further
stating that any complete description of creation will suffer from similar
> >> The Tree of Life and all its attendant symbolism
> there are countless such diagrams. I'll presume you are talking about a
> particular popular cosmogram described by Parpola as "the Sefirotic
> Tree" (apparently deriving its form from Luria). I probably don't have
> to suggest to you that your usage sounds rather similar to the usage of
> "the Tarot" of which you were elsewhere critical.
I am conscious of speaking within a particular context and aware that
other models exist.
> >> is built up from a permutation and recombination of human experience;
> >> it is an effort to reverse-engineer the engines of creation.
> > And now, from stating that there is no intrinsic meaning and that qabala is
> > best understood as cloud-gazing, you have inexplicably swung back to the
> > opposite assertion -- that an original meaning is being reconstructed.
> neither is any "creation" necessary nor are there traces of any engines
> of which I am aware. evidence? why isn't this all so much imagination
> and doctrinal nonsense?
Too literal again. Take "engines of creation" as poetic license for "the
laws of nature responsible for the emergence of the universe". As for
"creation", perhaps a more satisfactory rendering would be "the events
which caused the coming-into-being of the world as we know it today".
Certainly, the preponderance of modern scientific evidence inveighs
against a steady-state universe and strongly suggests a (physical) origin
in a massive outrush of matter and energy many billions of years ago.
Evidence includes the observable expansion of space, the geological
record, and observation of star populations, among many other things.
Love is the law, love under will.