Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Grid (Meaningless? Added by Crowley?)

Expand Messages
  • william wheeler
    ... well well it is so nice to people not following the new works in magick and then saying things that are just meaningless. The grid you think of as
    Message 1 of 22 , Feb 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      >> As for the grid, it has been established that Aiwass did not
      >> dictate for Crowley to draw a grid. The grid may very well be an
      >> accident or a coincedence in the original ms., but one will create
      >> the grid in order to fabricate the 'stele of revealing.' If one had
      >> to draw a grid, one might be inclined to do so on page 16 of the text
      >> in order to make sense of "this line drawn is a key", III:47.
      >> I'm curious as to who added the grid and why...Any chance Rose added
      >> it?
      >
      > The grid was added by Crowley 25-30 years after the text was
      > dictated. I think its meaningless.

      well well it is so nice to people not following the new works in magick and
      then saying things that are just meaningless.

      The grid you think of as meaningless as started a whole new magickal system.
      and you have no clue about it...

      read the books of Gerald del Campo/learn about the "New Aeon English Qabalah
      Revealed" ISBN#:1-891948-06-7

      when you have read about it then you can come back here and say the Grid is
      what it is.

      wuffa


      [moderator note: Mr. Wheeler, please note the revised format of your post
      and attempt to adhere to such beauteous standards in future sendings.
      I'm testing out the Moderator Editing feature for the first time and
      thought I might experiment on your post, reformatting it so we'll know
      who said what and what your new text might be. thanks for your
      participation in T93-L! 333]
    • antaios
      On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 17:51:38 -0800, william wheeler wrote ... I m sure the PoL is aware of the way the grid has been used in the formulation of New Aeon
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 4, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 17:51:38 -0800, william wheeler wrote
        > >> As for the grid, it has been established that Aiwass did not
        > >> dictate for Crowley to draw a grid. The grid may very well be an
        > >> accident or a coincedence in the original ms., but one will create
        > >> the grid in order to fabricate the 'stele of revealing.' If one had
        > >> to draw a grid, one might be inclined to do so on page 16 of the text
        > >> in order to make sense of "this line drawn is a key", III:47.
        > >> I'm curious as to who added the grid and why...Any chance Rose added
        > >> it?
        > >
        > > The grid was added by Crowley 25-30 years after the text was
        > > dictated. I think its meaningless.
        >
        > well well it is so nice to people not following the new works in
        > magick and then saying things that are just meaningless.
        >
        > The grid you think of as meaningless as started a whole new magickal
        > system. and you have no clue about it...

        I'm sure the PoL is aware of the way the grid has been used in the
        formulation of New Aeon English Qabalah. I think he has very understandable
        reasons for not accepting it as the basis for such. From the tone of your
        post, I assume you think he's just an idiot. Let's back up for a second.

        First of all, what's the basis for using the grid to formulate a system of
        gematria? That is, why not use the stain on the first page of chapter 3, or
        the faint diagonal pencil line that runs through most pages of the
        manuscript, or the long list of orthography errors in Crowley's handwriting
        for instance? Is the grid special in a way that these other features of the
        manuscript are not? If one can ignore these other features -- as NAEQ people
        have mostly done in the course of formulating the system -- why can't one
        ignore the grid and come up with a perfectly good system? The assumption that
        the grid is special must have some underlying rationale.

        If this rationale is that the grid is somehow part of the original text of
        Liber AL, that it was received along with the rest of it from Aiwass or
        is "Class A," then this rationale can be definitively refuted. The grid was
        drawn by Crowley *years* after the book was received. It was not in the
        manuscript when it was published in the Equinox. It is evidently part of an
        attempt by him to discover the secret of the "line drawn," which the text
        *specifically* instructs him not to attempt. The idea that it is on better
        footing than any other feature of the manuscript to reveal important esoteric
        truths is thus far from compelling, at least less compelling than features of
        the manuscript that can be traced to its actual reception.

        If the grid is not special in some sense, then the fact that NAEQ is derived
        from it (arguably, I might add, since as I understand it this was actually
        noticed *after* the system had been deduced from other considerations)
        doesn't give it any more credibility than any other system.

        > when you have read about it then you can come back here and say the
        > Grid is what it is.

        Certainly it is what it is, but the question is whether there's any
        compelling reason to think it's anything more than a failed attempt on
        Crowley's part to derive a system of English gematria, or otherwise plumb the
        secrets of the "chance shape" of the text.


        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        93 93/93
        RIKB
        www.horusset.com/RIKB

        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        WebMail provided by ACCtion Internet
        http://www.acction.com
      • unikron
        ... wrote: ... magickal system. ... Well, I must confess, I only half-heartedly follow new works in magick. As for the NAEQ, I do think it
        Message 3 of 22 , Feb 4, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "william wheeler"
          <holyconelia@h...> wrote:

          ***in concern of the validity of the grid contained in Liber aL***

          >
          > The grid you think of as meaningless as started a whole new
          magickal system.
          > and you have no clue about it...
          >
          > read the books of Gerald del Campo/learn about the "New Aeon
          > English Qabalah Revealed" >

          Well, I must confess, I only half-heartedly follow new works in
          magick.
          As for the NAEQ, I do think it is a worthy effort...and I am most
          delighted that there was such an undertaking to probe the mysteries
          of Liber aL. I feel the NAEQ can be debunked without resorting to
          the grid (valid or not.) NAEQ uses English; and that is why it
          fails.
          Regardless of English's haphazard spelling and grammar rules (LaL
          cites language as being flawed), its errors can readily be seen in
          the alphabet itself. Why? :-) I'm not going to tell!

          Unfortunately, the passage of time, coupled with humanity, tends to
          corrupt things, and language is no exception. Hebrew and Ionic Greek
          are superior forms of information technology than most languages
          throughout history and to the present. It would be wise of people,
          especially in concerns of gematria/kabalah, to view language as an
          information technology. Once you identify the failings/limitations
          of languages, you will expound your views of data fabrication,
          processing, & transmission.

          Grandmother Spider wove the universe, plucked the letters of the
          alphabet from her web and administered them to her 3 daughters. With
          these letters, the daughters fashioned the sun, moon, the stars, the
          earth, plants & animals, rivers, people, & etc. The tribe (sorry,
          don't remember the name) with this tale never had a written language.


          unikron (took page 16 of chpt. III, stuffed it in my pipe & smoked it)
        • Julianus
          93 ... hmmm... that *would* be more in tune with the remark about the chance shape of the letters, not to mention the new symbols of the English Alphabet.
          Message 4 of 22 , Feb 5, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            93

            antaios wrote:

            > First of all, what's the basis for using the grid to formulate a system of
            > gematria? That is, why not use the stain on the first page of chapter 3, or
            > the faint diagonal pencil line that runs through most pages of the
            > manuscript, or the long list of orthography errors in Crowley's handwriting
            > for instance?

            hmmm... that *would* be more in tune with the remark about the 'chance
            shape of the letters,' not to mention the 'new symbols' of the English
            Alphabet. The concept of a magical alphabet based on Crowley's
            handwriting seems downright masochistic, though. That said, I'm such a
            sucker for interesting scripts that I won't be able to resist inventing one...

            93 93/93

            -- Julianus


            “Nothing on the face of this earth -- and I do mean nothing --
            is half so dangerous as a children’s story that happens to be
            real, and you and I are wandering blindfolded through a myth
            devised by a maniac.”
            -- Master Li Kao (T’ang Dynasty)

            *** John’s Creeping Homepage of Doom ***
            http://www.kiva.net/~julianus/main.html
          • antaios
            93! ... Heh...that s putting it mildly... I wasn t thinking of anything in particular, but there are a number of instances where the wrong letter is written
            Message 5 of 22 , Feb 5, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              93!

              > hmmm... that *would* be more in tune with the remark about the
              > 'chance shape of the letters,' not to mention the 'new symbols' of
              > the English Alphabet. The concept of a magical alphabet based on Crowley's
              > handwriting seems downright masochistic, though.

              Heh...that's putting it mildly... I wasn't thinking of anything in
              particular, but there are a number of instances where the "wrong letter" is
              written or letters are flubbed in one way or another. For example, on p. 4 of
              the 2nd chapter of the manuscript, the o in the word "dog" is a G overwritten
              with an O, etc. The whole book is replete with little things like
              this...spelling "prophet" with an initial S, overwriting the initial
              miniscule n of Nuit with a capital, and so on. I don't see any clear and
              obvious way to do anything with these little hiccups, but they do seem to fit
              with the injunction about the "chance shape."

              > That said, I'm such
              > a sucker for interesting scripts that I won't be able to resist
              > inventing one...

              Of course, you realize that if you find anything good, you'll have to
              oblige Thelemic history by immediately going insane.

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              93 93/93
              RIKB
              www.horusset.com/RIKB

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              WebMail provided by ACCtion Internet
              http://www.acction.com
            • eyeofhoor
              ... Your position is assumptive at best. I am a seasoned student of gematria and have studied and analyzed all of the popular systems, and many of the obscure
              Message 6 of 22 , Feb 5, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Prophet of L:

                > > The grid was added by Crowley 25-30 years after the text was
                > > dictated. I think its meaningless.

                -"william wheeler" <holyconelia@h...>:

                > well well it is so nice to people not following the new works in
                > magick and then saying things that are just meaningless.
                >
                > The grid you think of as meaningless as started a whole new
                > magickal system. and you have no clue about it...

                Your position is assumptive at best. I am a seasoned student of
                gematria and have studied and analyzed all of the popular systems,
                and many of the obscure ones also.

                >
                > read the books of Gerald del Campo/learn about the "New Aeonn
                > English Qabalah Revealed" ISBN#:1-891948-06-7

                I'm familiar with most if not all of the claims made about English
                Qaballa/NAEQ

                >
                > when you have read about it then you can come back here and say the
                > Grid is what it is.

                What factor qualifies Campo as an expert? His book is published by
                Luxor Press, which is owned by a prominent member of the OTO that is
                an NAEQ enthusiast. Anyone with a few thousand dollars to spend can
                have a book published; doing so does not the qualify the value of its
                content.

                I'm providing link to another post from a few months ago that
                explains why I think correspondences generated with serial gematria
                systems are illusory, if not entirely deceptive.


                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l/message/13011

                Prophet of L
              • David R. Jones
                Do what thou wilt Shall be the whole of the Law. ... dollars to spend can have a book published; doing so does not the qualify the value of its content. What
                Message 7 of 22 , Feb 5, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Do what thou wilt

                  Shall be the whole of the Law.

                  > What factor qualifies Campo as an expert? Anyone with a few thousand
                  dollars to spend can have a book published; doing so does not the qualify
                  the value of its content.

                  What qualifies you as an expert? I have certainly never seen Gerald make
                  the same kinds of gross errors of reasoning and shoddy attempts at
                  scholarship that you make here and in almost every presentation you make.

                  > His book is published by Luxor Press, which is owned by a prominent member
                  of the OTO that is an NAEQ enthusiast.

                  How does this have any bearing on the content? If you don't have any actual
                  arguments I don't see why you are levelling a personal attack, invoking
                  guilt by association and damning of the origin. You know it really is hard
                  to take anything you say very seriously when every argument you make is
                  replete with multiple and obvious errors of the most basic kinds of logic.
                  One has to suspect that your arguments are all a result of the same kinds
                  inability to apply critical thinking.

                  >Anyone with a few thousand dollars to spend can have a book published;
                  doing so does not the qualify the value of its content.

                  Anyone can post their drivel to the Internet and pretend to be an authority
                  too. You not only do this all the time, but you also use others who do so
                  and pretend they have some kind of real authority.

                  >Your position is assumptive at best. I am a seasoned student of gematria
                  and have studied and analyzed all of the popular systems, and many of the
                  obscure ones also.

                  So is Gerald, so what? Evidence vs. experience would be so much more
                  interesting than personal attacks.

                  >I'm familiar with most if not all of the claims made about English
                  Qaballa/NAEQ

                  Then why don't you critique their substance instead of making spurious,
                  fallacious and personal attacks?

                  >I'm providing link to another post from a few months ago that explains why
                  I think correspondences generated with serial gematria systems are illusory,
                  if not entirely deceptive.

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l/message/13011

                  Interesting points and I do agree in principle, but the logic would seem to
                  apply to your system just as easily and I don't see how your argument
                  "explains" your conclusion, though it does provide intriguing evidence for
                  fault in gematric systems. I have made this argument too, that systems
                  where the numeric to alphabet correspondence is not intrinsic are all faulty
                  in this way. Yours as much as anyone's

                  Love is the
                  law, love under will.

                  David R. Jones
                • Julianus
                  93 ... What!? You ve known me for all these years and haven t noticed I m *already* insane? Now I m really hurt! 93 93/93 -- Julianus “Nothing on the face of
                  Message 8 of 22 , Feb 5, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    93

                    antaios wrote:

                    > > That said, I'm such
                    > > a sucker for interesting scripts that I won't be able to resist
                    > > inventing one...
                    >
                    > Of course, you realize that if you find anything good, you'll have to
                    > oblige Thelemic history by immediately going insane.

                    What!? You've known me for all these years and haven't noticed I'm
                    *already* insane? Now I'm really hurt!

                    93 93/93

                    -- Julianus


                    “Nothing on the face of this earth -- and I do mean nothing --
                    is half so dangerous as a children’s story that happens to be
                    real, and you and I are wandering blindfolded through a myth
                    devised by a maniac.”
                    -- Master Li Kao (T’ang Dynasty)

                    *** John’s Creeping Homepage of Doom ***
                    http://www.kiva.net/~julianus/main.html
                  • eyeofhoor
                    ... Campo was cited as a authoritive source on the subject of NAEQ-I was not. Your question is combative and irrelevant to the subject of NAEQ, which is the
                    Message 9 of 22 , Feb 5, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "David R. Jones" <drjones@u...>
                      wrote:

                      > What qualifies you as an expert?

                      Campo was cited as a authoritive source on the subject of NAEQ-I
                      was not. Your question is combative and irrelevant to the subject of
                      NAEQ, which is the topic being discussed.


                      > I have certainly never seen Gerald make
                      > the same kinds of gross errors of reasoning and shoddy attempts at
                      > scholarship that you make here and in almost every presentation you
                      > make.

                      Your statement is irrelevant to the question asked. I was accused
                      of knowing nothing about NAEQ, was provided a source of information
                      on it, and requested the original respondent justify his
                      recommendation by providing the expert qualifications of the author
                      of the material. Are scholars the only ones allowed to ask for
                      scholarly references and sources? Must we mere peons be relegated to
                      taking the scholarly scholars solely at their word?

                      PoL:

                      > > His book is published by Luxor Press, which is owned by a
                      > prominent member of the OTO that is an NAEQ enthusiast.

                      D. Jones:

                      > How does this have any bearing on the content?

                      The content of Campo's book is not the subject of discussion, his
                      qualifications as an expert on NAEQ is. Typically, many persons would
                      be impressed solely with the fact a book has been published--which in
                      itself could interpreted as a factor that qualifies an author as an
                      expert. I thought it relevant to point out that a single NAEQ
                      enthusiast is responsible for the publication of the book.

                      > If you don't have any actual arguments

                      I made no argument--I asked a question.

                      > I don't see why you are levelling a personal attack,

                      I made no attack, personal or otherwise--I asked a question and
                      provided a factual observation pertinent to the discussion.

                      > invoking guilt by association and damning of the origin.

                      I did not invoke, nor did I damn anyone O Scholarly One--I asked a
                      simple question.

                      I have no more time for your mean-spiritedness.


                      Prophet of L
                    • David R. Jones
                      93 ... the topic being discussed. So was yours. I m amazed that you think that your veiled and not so veiled attacks are just fine, but as soon as someone
                      Message 10 of 22 , Feb 5, 2004
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        93

                        > Your question is combative and irrelevant to the subject of NAEQ, which is
                        the topic being discussed.

                        So was yours. I'm amazed that you think that your veiled and not so veiled
                        attacks are just fine, but as soon as someone does the same to you you cry
                        fowl. Are you that oblivious to your own actions that you don't see that
                        you whine about the very things of which you are guilty? By the way I
                        haven't seen you actually discuss NAEQ either, just level attacks and
                        pretend that acounts for real discussion.

                        >Are scholars the only ones allowed to ask for scholarly references and
                        sources? Must we mere peons be relegated to taking the scholarly scholars
                        solely at their word?

                        No but since you accused someone of lacking authority, you set the standard.
                        You can't reasonably complain if the standard you set is applied to you.

                        > The content of Campo's book is not the subject of discussion, his
                        qualifications as an expert on NAEQ is.

                        Huh? The content of the book either demonstrates his qualifications or not.

                        > Your statement is irrelevant to the question asked.

                        No your statement regarding his personal qualifications (considering you
                        refuse to discuss the actual contents of the book) and esp. his membership
                        in O.T.O. and the publisher of the books interests are what are totally
                        irrelevant.

                        > Typically, many persons would be impressed solely with the fact a book has
                        been published--which in itself could interpreted as a factor that qualifies
                        an author as an expert.

                        I don't see this conveyed in anyway in the original post. Your using it
                        here is a typical red herring.

                        > I made no attack, personal or otherwise--I asked a question and provided
                        a factual observation pertinent to the discussion.

                        A typical definition of an Ad Hominem is:

                        http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

                        The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
                        argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
                        person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
                        Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
                        gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
                        attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

                        You did A: "The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
                        argument itself."

                        "What factor qualifies Campo as an expert?" . . . "Anyone with a few
                        thousand dollars to spend can have a book published; doing so does not the
                        qualify the value of its content."

                        Veiled but certainly personal in the first case and an attack as you answer
                        the question with a snide reference to "anyone" etc.

                        And B: Or, finally, a person may be
                        attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

                        "His book is published by Luxor Press, which is owned by a prominent member
                        of the OTO that is an NAEQ enthusiast."

                        >I did not invoke, nor did I damn anyone O Scholarly One--I asked a simple
                        question.

                        'fraid you did, see above.

                        >I have no more time for your mean-spiritedness.

                        I notice you convenienty avoid answering the substantive questions regarding
                        how your own critique has an equally negative impact on your own work

                        Love Jones
                      • Chris Titan
                        ... system of ... chapter 3, or ... handwriting ... 93, The whole point of Gematria is to get you outside your head when you read scripture. It can be used to
                        Message 11 of 22 , Feb 6, 2004
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "antaios" <antaios@h...> wrote:
                          >
                          > First of all, what's the basis for using the grid to formulate a
                          system of
                          > gematria? That is, why not use the stain on the first page of
                          chapter 3, or
                          > the faint diagonal pencil line that runs through most pages of the
                          > manuscript, or the long list of orthography errors in Crowley's
                          handwriting
                          > for instance?

                          93,

                          The whole point of Gematria is to get you outside your head when you
                          read scripture. It can be used to tie in whole verses of scripture to
                          numbers which can be encoded on talismata.
                          I find EQ to have a bit of humor in it.

                          "why not use the stain on the first page of chapter 3,"


                          the stain on the first page of chapter 3 = 472


                          472 = Now this mystery of the letters is done, and more than this it
                          is not necessary to say.


                          Chris Titan
                        • antaios
                          93! ... language. If they had no written language, how did they have a concept of writing system, let alone alphabet, which is a late development as writing
                          Message 12 of 22 , Feb 6, 2004
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            93!

                            > Grandmother Spider wove the universe, plucked the letters of the
                            > alphabet from her web and administered them to her 3 daughters.
                            > With these letters, the daughters fashioned the sun, moon, the stars,
                            > the earth, plants & animals, rivers, people, & etc. The tribe
                            > (sorry, don't remember the name) with this tale never had a written
                            language.

                            If they had no written language, how did they have a concept of "writing
                            system, let alone "alphabet," which is a late development as writing systems
                            go?

                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            93 93/93
                            RIKB
                            www.horusset.com/RIKB

                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            WebMail provided by ACCtion Internet
                            http://www.acction.com
                          • antaios
                            93! ... Should I take that as an oh, be serious! ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 93 93/93 RIKB www.horusset.com/RIKB - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            Message 13 of 22 , Feb 6, 2004
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              93!

                              > "why not use the stain on the first page of chapter 3,"
                              >
                              > the stain on the first page of chapter 3 = 472
                              >
                              > 472 = Now this mystery of the letters is done, and more than this it
                              > is not necessary to say.

                              Should I take that as an "oh, be serious!"?

                              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                              93 93/93
                              RIKB
                              www.horusset.com/RIKB

                              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                              WebMail provided by ACCtion Internet
                              http://www.acction.com
                            • Alamantra
                              ... William S Burroughs The Electronic Revolution : In the beginning was the word and the word was god and has remained one of the mysteries ever since. The
                              Message 14 of 22 , Feb 6, 2004
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                unikron:
                                > Regardless of English's haphazard spelling and grammar rules (LaL
                                > cites language as being flawed), its errors can readily be seen in
                                > the alphabet itself. Why? :-) I'm not going to tell!
                                >
                                > Unfortunately, the passage of time, coupled with humanity, tends to
                                > corrupt things, and language is no exception. Hebrew and Ionic Greek
                                > are superior forms of information technology than most languages
                                > throughout history and to the present. It would be wise of people,
                                > especially in concerns of gematria/kabalah, to view language as an
                                > information technology. Once you identify the failings/limitations
                                > of languages, you will expound your views of data fabrication,
                                > processing, & transmission.

                                William S Burroughs "The Electronic Revolution":

                                "In the beginning was the word and the word was god and has remained one of the mysteries ever since. The word was God and the word was flesh we are told. In the beginning of what exactly was this beginning word? In the beginning of WRITTEN history. It is generally assumed that spoken word came before the written word. I suggest that the spoken word as we know it came after the written word. In the beginning was the word and the word was God and the word was flesh ... human flesh ... In the beginning of WRITING. Animals talk and convey information but they do not write. They cannot make information available to future generations or to animals outside the range of their communication system. This is the crucial distinction between men and other animals. WRITING. Korzybski, who developed the concept of General Semantics, the meaning of meaning, has pointed out this human distinction and described man as 'the time binding animal'. He can make information to other men over a length of time through writing. Animals talk. They don't write. Now a wise old rat may know a lot about traps and poison but he cannot write a text book on DEATH TRAPS IN YOUR WAREHOUSE for the Reader's Digest with tactics for ganging up on digs and ferrets and taking care of wise guys who stuff steel wool up our holes. It is doubtful if the spoke word would have ever evolved beyond the animal stage without the written word. The written word is inferential in HUMAN speech. It would not occur to our wise old rat to assemble the young rats and pass his knowledge along in an aural tradition BECAUSE THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF TIME BINDING COULD NOT OCCUR WITHOUT THE WRITTEN WORD. The written word is of course a symbol for something and in the case of hieroglyphic language writing like Egyptian it may be a symbol for itself that is a picture of what it represents. This is not true of an alphabet language like English. The word leg has no pictorial resemblance to a leg. It refers to the SPOKEN word leg. so we may forget that a written word IS AN IMAGE and that written words are images in sequence that is to say MOVING PICTURES. So any hieroglyphic sequence gives us an immediate working definition for spoken words. Spoken words are verbal units that refer to this pictorial sequence. And what then is the written word? My basis theory is that the written word was literally a virus that made spoken word possible. The word has not been recognized as a virus because it has achieved a state of stable symbiosis with the host...(This symbiotic relationship is now breaking down for reasons I will suggest later.)"


                                Bliss:
                                Alamantra
                                www.greaterthelema.org
                                www.alamantra.org
                                www.antiqillum.com
                              • 333
                                50040208 vii om My Favourite Thelemic Prophet: # # The grid was added by Crowley 25-30 years after the text was # # dictated. I think its meaningless. does
                                Message 15 of 22 , Feb 8, 2004
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  50040208 vii om

                                  My Favourite Thelemic Prophet:
                                  # > # The grid was added by Crowley 25-30 years after the text was
                                  # > # dictated. I think its meaningless.

                                  does Crowley describe this somewhere? I looked briefly into
                                  "Equinox of the Gods" and "Commentaries on the Book of the Law"
                                  and even at the Blue Brick (ABA) briefly (damn that has a lot
                                  of info!), but came up with nothing about the Grid/Circled-Square.

                                  Mr. Swithers:
                                  # > well well it is so nice to people not following the new works in
                                  # > magick and then saying things that are just meaningless.

                                  it's a judgement call. explication of meaning in contrast usually
                                  displays for all to see who has the better understanding. those
                                  who dance around the subject or focus on personalities rather than
                                  daa are usually blowing smoke or of variable reliability.

                                  # > The grid you think of as meaningless [h]as started a whole
                                  # > new magickal system. and you have no clue about it...

                                  how did you arrive at this conclusion?

                                  RIKB:
                                  # I'm sure the PoL is aware of the way the grid has been used
                                  # in the formulation of New Aeon English Qabalah.

                                  who were the primary movers and shakers of this formulation over
                                  time? Jake Stratton-Kent made me more aware of it fairly recently
                                  and within his FAQs, but I'm interested in comparing notes with
                                  contending parties. is "NAEQ" the same as "EQ"?

                                  # First of all, what's the basis for using the grid to formulate
                                  # a system of gematria?

                                  indeed, it goes 1-10 and a-g or something, more like a map than
                                  some cipher. there is that line and circled +, however.

                                  # That is, why not use the stain on the first page of chapter 3,

                                  less geometric and alphanumeric.

                                  # or the faint diagonal pencil line that runs through most pages
                                  # of the manuscript,

                                  no grid?

                                  # or the long list of orthography errors in Crowley's handwriting
                                  # for instance?

                                  heh there's mention of ordering the English letters somewhere
                                  near the Grid ain't there? the Grid is III:47 if memory serves.

                                  # Is the grid special in a way that these other features of the
                                  # manuscript are not?

                                  220 doesn't have any other gridded pages that I can see.

                                  # If one can ignore these other features -- as NAEQ people
                                  # have mostly done in the course of formulating the system
                                  # -- why can't one ignore the grid and come up with a
                                  # perfectly good system?

                                  no reason I can see. the way Jake and others have talked, I'd
                                  imagine they'd say that would be fine (at least the EQ people
                                  would be fine with it, since they say to do anything you want
                                  and if it produces results then keep going with it). maybe the
                                  *NA*EQ folx have stricter standards?

                                  # The assumption that the grid is special must have some
                                  # underlying rationale.

                                  it is the only grid in the word that I can see. acontextually,
                                  a line and a circled X on a grid seems more geographical
                                  and/or map-like than numerolinguistic, but I'll listen on.

                                  # If this rationale is that the grid is somehow part of the
                                  # original text of Liber AL, that it was received along with
                                  # the rest of it from Aiwass or is "Class A," then this
                                  # rationale can be definitively refuted.

                                  by what method? I'm no contesting you, just wondering where
                                  you're drawing from to derive the post-reception add-on.

                                  # The grid was drawn by Crowley *years* after the book
                                  # was received. It was not in the manuscript when it
                                  # was published in the Equinox. It is evidently part of an
                                  # attempt by him to discover the secret of the "line drawn,"

                                  is this something he talks about in his confessions or something?

                                  # which the text
                                  # *specifically* instructs him not to attempt.

                                  COP cite?

                                  # The idea that it is on better footing than any other feature of
                                  # the manuscript to reveal important esoteric truths is thus far
                                  # from compelling,

                                  if Crowley says so?

                                  # at least less compelling than features of
                                  # the manuscript that can be traced to its actual reception.

                                  why is that important? is the trance of its reception more
                                  conducive to better understanding because Ankh-n-f-Khonsu
                                  is a better editor/expositor than Crowley or one of his
                                  Scarlet (or other coloured) Women?

                                  # If the grid is not special in some sense, then the fact that NAEQ is derived
                                  # from it (arguably, I might add, since as I understand it this was actually
                                  # noticed *after* the system had been deduced from other considerations)
                                  # doesn't give it any more credibility than any other system.

                                  the EQ system was supposedly tested based on what cool results
                                  could be made with the various summations. this was innovative
                                  and, I thought, inspired. it seemed the most rational formula
                                  after taking the English letters in sequence by some traditional
                                  valuation system (1->26; 1-9/10-90/100-900).

                                  # > when you have read about it then you can come back here and say the
                                  # > Grid is what it is.

                                  mleh, no hints. meanie.

                                  # Certainly it is what it is, but the question is whether there's any
                                  # compelling reason to think it's anything more than a failed attempt on
                                  # Crowley's part to derive a system of English gematria,

                                  why failed? he did one Liber with 3 symbols after the Yijing
                                  trigrams with poetry and whatever.

                                  # or otherwise plumb the secrets of the "chance shape" of the text.

                                  but what is the measure of the value of the chance? I gather that you
                                  are saying the criteria is arbitrary, rather than something more
                                  predictable or deducable.

                                  why don't you all mention the system of value itself? there's only
                                  26 letters in the alphabet, so it could be specified at least in
                                  its particulars within this very email list (gasp!). don't give me
                                  no fucking URLs. thanks.

                                  333
                                • antaios
                                  93! ... I wasn t in on the ground level of the movement or anything, so I imagine that my sources are the same as yours. Those sources are rather vague in a
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Feb 9, 2004
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    93!

                                    > RIKB:
                                    > # I'm sure the PoL is aware of the way the grid has been used
                                    > # in the formulation of New Aeon English Qabalah.
                                    >
                                    > who were the primary movers and shakers of this formulation over
                                    > time?

                                    I wasn't in on the ground level of the movement or anything, so I
                                    imagine that my sources are the same as yours. Those sources are rather vague
                                    in a lot of particulars. For example, JSK's English Qaballa FAQ says "certain
                                    groups of individuals" were working on the solution and states that "one
                                    member" arrived at the solution. These individuals are not named. However,
                                    other sources name Jim Lees as the "one member." Carol Smith has been
                                    credited with the discovery as well -- she has an essay on the grid page on
                                    the Gnostic Alchemical Church of Typhon-Christ website. However, Smith's
                                    article was written in 1980, about 4 years after Jim Lees' discovery. I think
                                    much of the mystery is due to the fact that the discoverers were reluctant to
                                    take personal credit, preferring for the system to speak for itself rather
                                    than turn it into a cult of personality, which in my opinion is admirable. As
                                    I understand it -- and I have not communicated with him about it, so take
                                    this with the appropriate caveat -- Gerald Del Campo got involved with the
                                    system through membership in QBLH, the first organization in the US that
                                    began working with the system.

                                    > is "NAEQ" the same as "EQ"?

                                    Yes, as far as I can determine, the terms are interchangeable. I don't
                                    know exactly why two different acronyms developed. I do know JSK usually
                                    refers to it simply as EQ. Perhaps since there are many systems out there
                                    now, NAEQ was an attempt to be more specific.

                                    > indeed, it goes 1-10 and a-g or something, more like a map than
                                    > some cipher. there is that line and circled +, however.

                                    The line and circle are in the earliest reproduction of the manuscript,
                                    in the Equinox, so I take no issue with those. But yes, it's clearly more of
                                    a coordinate system, at least to my eyes.

                                    > # That is, why not use the stain on the first page of chapter 3,
                                    >
                                    > less geometric and alphanumeric.

                                    Mmmm...yes, but it does circumscribe a fairly well-defined set of words
                                    and letters.

                                    > # or the faint diagonal pencil line that runs through most pages
                                    > # of the manuscript,
                                    >
                                    > no grid?

                                    "Most pages" is inaccurate (misremembered) but there are diagonal pencil
                                    lines on on manuscript pp. 1-5 of the first chapter that appear to be drawn
                                    in such a way as to trace the direction of the slant in Crowley's
                                    handwriting.

                                    >
                                    > # or the long list of orthography errors in Crowley's handwriting
                                    > # for instance?
                                    >
                                    > heh there's mention of ordering the English letters somewhere
                                    > near the Grid ain't there? the Grid is III:47 if memory serves.

                                    The grid is on the page that mentions the "chance shape of the letters."

                                    >
                                    > # Is the grid special in a way that these other features of the
                                    > # manuscript are not?
                                    >
                                    > 220 doesn't have any other gridded pages that I can see.

                                    Well, yes, it's special in the sense that it's the only one. I was
                                    thinking more along the lines that there are several oddities or extra-
                                    textual marks in the manuscript that could form the nuclei of ideas about
                                    the "chance shape of the letters." The grid stands out by virtue of its
                                    obvious planfulness, of course.
                                    >
                                    > # If this rationale is that the grid is somehow part of the
                                    > # original text of Liber AL, that it was received along with
                                    > # the rest of it from Aiwass or is "Class A," then this
                                    > # rationale can be definitively refuted.
                                    >
                                    > by what method? I'm no contesting you, just wondering where
                                    > you're drawing from to derive the post-reception add-on.

                                    Well, the photo-mechanical reproduction of the manuscript that's in
                                    original copies of the Equinox volume 1 number VII does not include the grid,
                                    so I assume it was not done before that was published in 1912. (I note that
                                    the two volume edition of the Equinox published a few years ago *does*
                                    include the grid because it is a fairly recent reproduction, so many people
                                    may not be aware that it was not in the first edition.) I'm sure that if
                                    there's a reference to when the grid was added anywhere in Crowley's works,
                                    it would be referenced in that issue of Red Flame that dissects the
                                    manuscript -- maybe someone who has a copy at hand can look it up for us? My
                                    memory is that it was added at some time during Crowley's stay in Cefalu.

                                    > # which the text
                                    > # *specifically* instructs him not to attempt.

                                    In AL III, 47: "in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let
                                    him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall
                                    discover the key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key" etc. This is the
                                    very verse over which the grid is drawn.

                                    > # at least less compelling than features of
                                    > # the manuscript that can be traced to its actual reception.
                                    >
                                    > why is that important? is the trance of its reception more
                                    > conducive to better understanding because Ankh-n-f-Khonsu
                                    > is a better editor/expositor than Crowley or one of his
                                    > Scarlet (or other coloured) Women?

                                    Admittedly, there is an implicit assumption on my part that whatever
                                    intelligence was guiding the reception would be responsible for the meanings
                                    concealed in the "chance shape of the letters and their relation to one
                                    another." Therefore, something added at a later date, outside the trance that
                                    inspired the original reception does not fall under the same instruction. One
                                    may certainly feel free to reject the assumption, but it is a factor I feel
                                    is important.

                                    > the EQ system was supposedly tested based on what cool results
                                    > could be made with the various summations. this was innovative
                                    > and, I thought, inspired. it seemed the most rational formula
                                    > after taking the English letters in sequence by some traditional
                                    > valuation system (1->26; 1-9/10-90/100-900).

                                    Well, of course, the results are the important thing. The accounts I've
                                    read, though, don't always emphasize the grid page as the starting point. For
                                    example, JSK's account says simply that "one member started counting every
                                    eleventh letter." I can easily see this being the case, given the importance
                                    of the number 11 in various passages. I believe Carol's use of the grid was a
                                    later development. If you're interested, I'll try to find Jake and ask him
                                    about the chain of events. I don't think the EQ/NAEQ results are worthless or
                                    baseless or any of that...I haven't personally found it very influential in a
                                    direct practice-based way, but I think there's a very valid & useful core for
                                    those who use it on a regular basis.

                                    > # Certainly it is what it is, but the question is whether there's any
                                    > # compelling reason to think it's anything more than a failed attempt on
                                    > # Crowley's part to derive a system of English gematria,
                                    >
                                    > why failed? he did one Liber with 3 symbols after the Yijing
                                    > trigrams with poetry and whatever.

                                    Well, only "failed" because he never came out and said that any system
                                    had arisen from drawing the grid. I'm not even convinced that what he was
                                    going for with the grid was a system of gematria. I think he was trying to
                                    extract some meaning from the "chance shape" of the line & crossed circle, or
                                    of the text itself, but it isn't necessarily of a numerological nature.

                                    >
                                    > # or otherwise plumb the secrets of the "chance shape" of the text.
                                    >
                                    > but what is the measure of the value of the chance? I gather that you
                                    > are saying the criteria is arbitrary, rather than something more
                                    > predictable or deducable.

                                    Yes, it's arbitrary. Of course, that's my view, from outside the system.
                                    My own speculations about "English Qabalah" probably look even more arbitrary
                                    to others, but *I* think I have very good reasons! The arbitrariness doesn't
                                    preclude it from being a useful system at all -- it just doesn't make for a
                                    case that's particularly compelling, that excludes other possibilities for
                                    example. The results -- depending on the practitioner -- are good, but having
                                    played around with many different systems, I know that good results can be
                                    had in many systems.

                                    > why don't you all mention the system of value itself? there's only
                                    > 26 letters in the alphabet, so it could be specified at least in
                                    > its particulars within this very email list (gasp!). don't give me
                                    > no fucking URLs. thanks.

                                    The system is simple and can be derived "on the fly." A is 1, then one
                                    counts eleven steps to L, which is 2, W=3, H=4, S=5 and so on. Here's the
                                    whole sequence:

                                    A=1 L=2 W=3 H=4 S=5 D=6 O=7 Z=8 K=9 V=10 G=11 R=12 C=13
                                    N=14 Y=15 J=16 U=17 F=18 Q=19 B=20 M=21 X=22 I=23 T=24 E=25 P=26

                                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                    93 93/93
                                    RIKB
                                    www.horusset.com/RIKB

                                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                    WebMail provided by ACCtion Internet
                                    http://www.acction.com
                                  • jesse roberts
                                    It isn t enough to hypothesize that the EQ is a workable system within a closed system, such as Thelema is? Do we really have to debate if it is the system?
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Feb 9, 2004
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      It isn't enough to hypothesize that the EQ is a
                                      workable system within a closed system, such as
                                      Thelema is? Do we really have to debate if it is
                                      "the" system? If Crowley's after-the-fact drawing of
                                      a grid on the page is some magical chance occurance as
                                      are the shape and placement of the letters in the text
                                      of AL?

                                      No offense, but when you guys and gals debate like
                                      this, you look like silly Christians/Muslims/any other
                                      religious fundamentalists who insist that their
                                      religion is right.

                                      Sad.

                                      Crispin
                                      --- antaios <antaios@...> wrote:
                                      > 93!
                                      > > RIKB:
                                      > > # I'm sure the PoL is aware of the way the grid has been used
                                      > > # in the formulation of New Aeon English Qabalah.
                                      > >
                                      > > who were the primary movers and shakers of this formulation over
                                      > > time?
                                      >
                                      > I wasn't in on the ground level of the movement
                                      > or anything, so I imagine that my sources are the same as yours.
                                      === message truncated ===

                                      [333 removed extraneous quotation]
                                    • antaios
                                      93! ... If my position has not been made clear on this, I ll state for the record that I would love for a thousand systems to bloom. Thus: star & star, system
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Feb 9, 2004
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        93!

                                        > Do we really have to debate if it is
                                        > "the" system?

                                        If my position has not been made clear on this, I'll state for the
                                        record that I would love for a thousand systems to bloom. Thus: star & star,
                                        system & system. I'll also state for the record that no one is under any
                                        obligation not to criticize what they see as silly, inelegant, or deficient
                                        about other systems. Open exchange of ideas runs both ways. No one has to
                                        present their work in a public forum, and those who do have to be willing to
                                        receive criticism based on logical reasoning, aesthetic judgments, religious
                                        beliefs, or any number of positions.

                                        > If Crowley's after-the-fact drawing of
                                        > a grid on the page is some magical chance occurance as
                                        > are the shape and placement of the letters in the text
                                        > of AL?

                                        That's a viable response to the criticisms I've been making -- but why
                                        not just make the point without implying that I'm some kind of
                                        fundamentalist? If you read the post you're referring to, I paid several
                                        compliments to the EQ system and the people who work with it. I like those
                                        guys. They have some cool ideas. It was hardly the response of a
                                        fundamentalist. I don't, for example, want to pass a constitutional amendment
                                        preventing them from practicing EQ or crash cessnas into their condos because
                                        they won't stop desecrating my Holy Books. This kind of criticism, which sees
                                        fundamentalism and intolerance in any kind of conflictual or critical stance
                                        is what I find obnoxious.

                                        >
                                        > No offense, but when you guys and gals debate like
                                        > this, you look like silly Christians/Muslims/any other
                                        > religious fundamentalists who insist that their
                                        > religion is right.

                                        Depends on one's attitude toward criticism and debate. If going over
                                        things with a fine toothed comb, making distinctions, and expressing one's
                                        individual point of view in distinction to those of others constitute jack-
                                        booted fascism of ideas, then hey, I guess you have us all pegged. Happy to
                                        see you've claimed the moral high ground.

                                        > Sad.

                                        Melodramatic.

                                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                        93 93/93
                                        RIKB
                                        www.horusset.com/RIKB

                                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                        WebMail provided by ACCtion Internet
                                        http://www.acction.com
                                      • Chris Titan
                                        ... For example, JSK s English Qaballa FAQ says certain ... that one ... In The Equinox, British Journal of Thelema,1988, Volume VII No.2, is given a brief
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Feb 9, 2004
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "antaios" <antaios@h...> wrote:
                                          > 93!
                                          For example, JSK's English Qaballa FAQ says "certain
                                          > groups of individuals" were working on the solution and states
                                          that "one
                                          > member" arrived at the solution. These individuals are not named.


                                          In The Equinox, British Journal of Thelema,1988, Volume VII No.2, is
                                          given a brief account of the groups involved in the discovery of the
                                          EQ...

                                          1976- Acting on faith certain groups & individuals simultaneously
                                          signed the A:.A:. oaths and worked with AL, in search of a Qabalah.
                                          Various attempts to produce a synthetic or rationalistic hypothetical
                                          Qabalah were made, then either abandoned or RITUALLY SACRIFICED as
                                          failures. Prominent in the former category were the
                                          O.'.Z.'.R.'.C.'.S.'. (Ordo Zerubable*Rosae Crusis*et Sangraal) and in
                                          the latter category T.T.S. ( The Thelemites Society). These two
                                          societies at that time were unknown to each other, yet both found the
                                          same symbols recurring time and time again; chiefly Venus in Libran
                                          guise, the Rosy Cross and Scorpio. The T.T.S. having sacrificed their
                                          Magickal Childe resumed the search (ritually) & consistently produced
                                          Qabalistic results indicating the harmonization of 11 and 13 as the
                                          key. Then one of their number, beginning with "A", counted eleven
                                          letters thereafter, i.e. BCDEFGHIJK-L and thus obtained AL and the
                                          beginning of an "Order and Value". As AL and eleven are both keys of
                                          THELEMA he continued and obtained the series
                                          ALWHSDOZKNGRCNYJUFQBMXITEP.

                                          end of quote.

                                          The Grid page was not even part of the original discovery it seems.
                                          EQ is a very simple cipher based on 11. It is easy to use and can
                                          produce some good results.
                                          The entire idea that "the gods" have ciphered in hidden messages
                                          into any scripture is a recipe for madness. Any individual in any
                                          instant of time can devise a cipher and if they can derive a hidden
                                          message or alter their consciousness they have a measure of success.
                                          -Chris Titan
                                        • unikron
                                          ... stars, ... written ... of writing ... writing systems ... Hey RikB :-) Well...I m not certain if this is accurate information; I read it somewhere and
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Feb 10, 2004
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            > > Grandmother Spider wove the universe, plucked the letters of the
                                            > > alphabet from her web and administered them to her 3 daughters.
                                            > > With these letters, the daughters fashioned the sun, moon, the
                                            stars,
                                            > > the earth, plants & animals, rivers, people, & etc. The tribe
                                            > > (sorry, don't remember the name) with this tale never had a
                                            written
                                            > language.
                                            >
                                            > If they had no written language, how did they have a concept
                                            of "writing
                                            > system, let alone "alphabet," which is a late development as
                                            writing systems
                                            > go?
                                            >
                                            > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                            Hey RikB :-)

                                            Well...I'm not certain if this is accurate information; I read it
                                            somewhere and took a liking to it: i like the use of numbers and the
                                            concept of universalism that it implies--->that there is one building
                                            block from which all is composed.

                                            The information is impossible to verify. Perhaps this tribe once had
                                            a written language/alphabet? There are some Indians who claim that
                                            their forefathers could read inscriptions that are carved into rocks,
                                            and that, at one time, this language was spoken by them.
                                            It could be an invention of a historian, a misunderstanding of a
                                            chronicler, etc. Who knows.

                                            Language is quite fascinating because of its complexity. Most
                                            theories of language development take an evolutionary approach: man
                                            uses sounds & gestures to communicate ideas, and gradually, sounds &
                                            gestures take shape of the written word.
                                            Many linguists feel commerce is responisble for accelerating language
                                            because language and numbers appear around the same time; and, our
                                            earliest recorded information is of a clerical/tallying nature.
                                            Mostly, records of inventories or trades. As trade increased, a need
                                            for more accurate record keeping was required...so, from clay tablets
                                            leading parchment.
                                            I find most curious the accounts of using knotted strings for
                                            communication purposes. China's history hints at such back in
                                            antiquity, and Peru has the Inca Khipu. Khipu seems to have been for
                                            recording numeric information (inventories, calendars, etc.), but
                                            there are some scholars who think some khipu may have stories &
                                            histories recorded within its knots.
                                            As late as the 19th century, German Bakers recorded recipes using
                                            knotted cords.
                                            I love the idea of a tactile information system: knotted cord demands
                                            a great deal of attention from the recorder & the reader: imagine all
                                            that mental stimulation/excitation! And, knots and cords brings us
                                            back to weaving Goddesses. Neith: a Goddess of Language, and a
                                            weaver.
                                            Do you like Origami? The fact that one can turn nothing (a sheet of
                                            paper) into anything (the sum of all possibilities) is grand! I
                                            think rope & knots contains the same potential. How many myths talk
                                            about civilization being founded by people/gods/creatures from the
                                            sea? Are there any books that deal specifically with
                                            occult/mysticism and maritime symbols?

                                            unikron
                                          • unikron
                                            ... remained one of the mysteries ever since. The word was God and the word was flesh we are told. In the beginning of what exactly was this beginning word? In
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Feb 10, 2004
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Alamantra" <alamantra@g...>
                                              wrote:
                                              >
                                              > "In the beginning was the word and the word was god and has
                                              remained one of the mysteries ever since. The word was God and the
                                              word was flesh we are told. In the beginning of what exactly was this
                                              beginning word? In the beginning of WRITTEN history. It is generally
                                              assumed that spoken word came before the written word. I suggest that
                                              the spoken word as we know it came after the written word. In the
                                              beginning was the word and the word was God and the word was
                                              flesh ... human flesh ... In the beginning of WRITING. Animals talk
                                              and convey information but they do not write. They cannot make
                                              information available to future generations or to animals outside the
                                              range of their communication system. This is the crucial distinction
                                              between men and other animals. WRITING.>
                                              -----------------------------------

                                              Depends on what you define as "WRITING."...Does it have to be written
                                              as in stylus to tablet or pen to paper? Isn't that a rather limited
                                              approach? Close your eyes...do you not see geometric shapes? Are
                                              those engraven images? Burnt upon the mind? Shouldn't that be
                                              classified as written, seeing as it is recorded information?
                                              There exist animals and insects that communicate knowledge to their
                                              offspring...and in terms of insects, even in a recorded format:
                                              chemistry. Chemical rearrangement can be deciphered by later
                                              generations. So, it would qualify as a written word. You might
                                              enjoy the world of entomology, it is quite fascinating.

                                              If language is progressive, then how do you explain such elaborations
                                              with Ionic Greek (numbers, words, sounds, & colors attributed to a
                                              symbol), whereas English is used for the most mundane fashion
                                              (excepting those who explore gematria.) Have you researched much on
                                              universal languages? You can readily look up "conlang" on the
                                              internet to learn more about language, its properties, and its
                                              construction.
                                              Langauge is a rather limited expression; I think INFORMATION
                                              TECHNOLOGY is more accurate.

                                              I do agree with you: the spoken word came after the written. But, I
                                              don't take a human-centric approach. Humanity is but a stepping
                                              stone, such an insignificant part in the overall machine; something
                                              to be rendered obsolete.


                                              unikron
                                            • antaios
                                              93! Thanks for quoting this, Chris. ... I find this very interesting because the product of 11 and 13 is 143, which is the sum of the numbers in the cypher
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Feb 10, 2004
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                93!

                                                Thanks for quoting this, Chris.

                                                > The T.T.S. having
                                                > sacrificed their Magickal Childe resumed the search (ritually) &
                                                > consistently produced Qabalistic results indicating the
                                                > harmonization of 11 and 13 as the key.

                                                I find this very interesting because the product of 11 and 13 is 143,
                                                which is the sum of the numbers in the "cypher" of II, 76. Does anyone know
                                                more about why they thought "the harmonization of 11 and 13" was the key? Or
                                                is this maybe a typo for 31?


                                                > The entire idea that "the gods"
                                                > have ciphered in hidden messages into any scripture is a recipe for
                                                > madness.

                                                Yeah, and? You seem to think it's a bad thing. LOL

                                                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                93 93/93
                                                RIKB
                                                www.horusset.com/RIKB

                                                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                WebMail provided by ACCtion Internet
                                                http://www.acction.com
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.