Re: QBL Study
hara
Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>I keep an updated copy of 777, a copy i update as regularly as i can.
>But that is merely an intellectual exercise and given some of the
>African concepts names and numbers i have ran across recently im not
>even sure of my attributions. Lwa = Dharma?
lol! that looks like a voodoo spirit equals the cosmic Buddhist
principle. do you mean Law = Dharma? that is a convention, yes.
do you keep your 777 online where others might view it? is it
substantially like the Bennett/Crowleyan matrix?
>> divinatory orientation.
>Interesting. Are you arguing randomness?
no, system review like doing 16 readings with 16 (or 4) different
decks of Tarot (or cartomancy) cards to determine what the result
might be as to my present condition. I've used 2 decks this way
and found it very helpful (Secret Dakini and Thoth Tarot). often
in the reverse order as the Thoth was more cutting and discipline
and the Dakini was all heart and support.
>> the purpose of receiving the transmission
>Isn't that an assumption?
damn straight. I am not even sure i know what you mean here, but
you are quite correct that i made a decision as to his meaning,
a supposition, assumption, and ran with it.
> that there not only is something there to receive
in a conventional sense it is mappable, traceable, in books.
in an oral sense it is attested to by bodies.
> but some actual thing received.
traditional doctrines or, like in Buddhism, some torch of
consciousness or wisdom, perhaps. it extends no doubt from
the lowest (mere information) to the highest (wisdom).
> One could just as easily see a system that promises a
> specific result to be meaningless in itself or what it
> purports to be and something altogether different.
only the ardent practitioners of systems promise results.
they are willing to neglect the conditions of the mage,
or maintain the power of their faith.
> ...qabalistic has become almost synonymous with Byzantine
> in its esoteric complexity upon which no two people agree,
> at least much beyond 1...2...3 or more esoterically 0...1...2.
term usage usually resonates with conceptual acquaintance. this
is at times also reflected in spelling and usage of grammar of
key terms (such as 'sefirot', 'keter', 'ain soph', 'gematria',
'kleppa', 'tree of life', etc.).
>> is to
>> apprehend and contemplate the reality of the cosmos.
> Zero is a number.
that is debated and debatable.
> I recently found out that there is no number between zero
> and one the way there is every other number...
there is indeed another number between every other number
and zero, but i'm not sure of its exact significance to you.
> makes sense to me, even metaphorically.
elaborate?
>> what is done thereafter is dependent upon the
>> skills and needs manifesting as a result.
> Before enlightenment....chopping wood and
> carrying water, after enlightenment, chopping
> wood and carrying water.
first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain.
having apprehended and contemplated the reality of the cosmos,
one may then use this to one's advantage in prediction and
influence. this is in fact why and how all divination may
be employed as a magical projectile (forced readings).
peace be with you,
hara
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Consult http://www.alt-magick-moderated.org/ where you
may locate the newest Posting Guidelines and Charter
for the newsgroup before your first post. Contact the
Moderation Team at moder...@alt-magick-moderated.org
hara
shalom alechem, my kin!
erwin:
>> Is your understanding of the universe noticeably better
>> as a result of this practice?
Absorbed <purestd...@hotmail.com>:
>I don't know. It has given me some clarity concerning the HGA,
you understood the meaning of the description of the HGA?
or it conforms with your a) other experience or b) knowledge?
>but my meditation might be responsible for that.
that is what i suspect was helpful about meditation for me.
it had a delayed effect, and so was difficult to track.
>I'd say I have a better understanding of the overall
>landscape and that has helped me. I'm still plugging
>away with meditation, though.
it's a lifetime thing.
>>> What do you think the purpose is?
>>
>> To help develop your understanding of the symbols that
>> are attributed to it, and their relationships to each other.
>
>Do you study it in a particular way, such as focusing on a
>sephira at a time,
some people trace specific paths up the tree or down the tree
(Snake/Sword for instance). others track by random or
sequential selection of Atus.
>or do you just study whatever you feel like at any given time?
orders and lineages develop curriculae.
>I have just been randomly puzzling aspects out when I feel like it.
in reflection of your universe; very reasonable. one of the other
means of qabalistic exploration is via interpolation of all objects
in experience as numbers. these numbers might be related in harmony
to the sefirot.
>...Maybe writing a few essays on Qabalah would be a good
>way to improve my understanding.
yes, it is both a means of explicit demonstration of knowledge
and a means of fabricating new knowledge out of imagination.
peace be with you,
hara
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
--
yronwode.com@nagasiva; http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired;
consider the "Question": Needleman -- The Heart of Philosophy
Tom
"hara" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:47576458$0$36371$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> shalom alechem, my kin!
>
> Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>>I keep an updated copy of 777, a copy i update as regularly as i can.
>>But that is merely an intellectual exercise and given some of the
>>African concepts names and numbers i have ran across recently im not
>>even sure of my attributions. Lwa = Dharma?
>
> lol! that looks like a voodoo spirit equals the cosmic Buddhist
> principle.
How unmannerly of you. Joseph doesn't like people mentioning and, worse
yet, laughing at his typos. He was complaining to me about it just a little
while ago.
> do you mean Law = Dharma?
See, Joseph? Nagasiva has no difficulty figuring out your meaning in spite
of a typo. Yet you seem incapable of it.
Joseph Littleshoes
> "hara" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
> news:47576458$0$36371$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>>shalom alechem, my kin!
>>
>>Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>>
>>>I keep an updated copy of 777, a copy i update as regularly as i can.
>>>But that is merely an intellectual exercise and given some of the
>>>African concepts names and numbers i have ran across recently im not
>>>even sure of my attributions. Lwa = Dharma?
>>
>>lol! that looks like a voodoo spirit equals the cosmic Buddhist
>>principle.
>
>
> How unmannerly of you. Joseph doesn't like people mentioning and, worse
> yet, laughing at his typos. He was complaining to me about it just a little
> while ago.
>
>
>>do you mean Law = Dharma?
>
>
> See, Joseph? Nagasiva has no difficulty figuring out your meaning in spite
> of a typo. Yet you seem incapable of it.
No i meant "Lwa"
"One of the largest differences however between African and Haitian
Vodou is that the transplanted Africans of Haiti were obliged to
disguise their lwa (sometimes spelled loa) or spirits as Roman Catholic
saints, a process called syncretism."
And stated at the time i was not sure of the meaning of the term.
Probly closer to angels or even archangels or even genii than Dharma.
Given your routine neglect to look something up to make sure of it
before you pounce "Tom" im not surprised you took another tumble on this
one.
--
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
> shalom alechem, my kin!
>
> Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>
>>I keep an updated copy of 777, a copy i update as regularly as i can.
>>But that is merely an intellectual exercise and given some of the
>>African concepts names and numbers i have ran across recently im not
>>even sure of my attributions. Lwa = Dharma?
>
>
> lol! that looks like a voodoo spirit equals the cosmic Buddhist
> principle. do you mean Law = Dharma?
No i meant "Lwa" but i have only recently fond a few pages with voodoo
and hoodoo glossaries.
> that is a convention, yes.
> do you keep your 777 online where others might view it?
Oh gracious no, i wore out my old MDR (magicians desk reference) long
ago and was just able to salvage most of my additions (spilled vial of
patchouli oil:) but have never put it back in that one page format, each
line on one page, as per the privately printed O.T.O. version.
> is it
> substantially like the Bennett/Crowleyan matrix?
Im not sure how you mean matrix but my Weiser edition
"Introduction by Israel Regardie
This edition includes Liber 777, Gematria (from Equinox Volume 1, Number
5), and Sepher Sephiroth (from Equinox Volume 1, Number 8)... 336 pages"
Is in various pieces and i most often refer to the few columns in Book
IV if i need a reference.
>
>
>>>divinatory orientation.
>
>
>>Interesting. Are you arguing randomness?
>
>
> no, system review like doing 16 readings with 16 (or 4) different
> decks of Tarot (or cartomancy) cards to determine what the result
> might be as to my present condition.
"Oy Gevult!"
> I've used 2 decks this way
> and found it very helpful (Secret Dakini and Thoth Tarot). often
> in the reverse order as the Thoth was more cutting and discipline
> and the Dakini was all heart and support.
Hmm i find it to be the exact opposite, the Crowley more abstruse and
mystically subtle and the Dakini more "Cutting Edge" and to the point,
almost blunt.
I have tried using not only numerous decks but different tools for one
reading, a tarot reading complemented or accented by an I Ching reading,
often with a good deal of astrology thrown in along with some gemetria
and other numerological manipulations, and a touch of bibliomancy just
to top it all off in one session.
But i stopped doing that maybe 15 years ago to concentrate on the single
tool of the Thoth deck.
>
>
>>>the purpose of receiving the transmission
>
>
>>Isn't that an assumption?
>
>
> damn straight. I am not even sure i know what you mean here, but
> you are quite correct that i made a decision as to his meaning,
> a supposition, assumption, and ran with it.
If i read you correctly you were implying if not assuming not only a
validity but an existence to any message that might be received.
I question the objective existence of the "transmission" even more than
any message that might be assumed to be of it. I think a study can
produce a gestalt or result that may not have been designed into the system.
>
>
>>that there not only is something there to receive
>
>
> in a conventional sense it is mappable, traceable, in books.
> in an oral sense it is attested to by bodies.
The existence of the tools, their traditional uses, and the claims made
for them.
>
>
>>but some actual thing received.
>
>
> traditional doctrines or, like in Buddhism, some torch of
> consciousness or wisdom, perhaps. it extends no doubt from
> the lowest (mere information) to the highest (wisdom).
Yes but the suggestion that such a thing exists could be more important
than the actual existence that is, if it exists at all, possibly the
result of the individual striving for understanding more than it is
buddhism, dharma, lwa, spirits, gods, tools, techniques, teachings etc.
>
>
>>One could just as easily see a system that promises a
>>specific result to be meaningless in itself or what it
>>purports to be and something altogether different.
>
>
> only the ardent practitioners of systems promise results.
> they are willing to neglect the conditions of the mage,
> or maintain the power of their faith.
Im not sure i know what you mean .... "a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing."?
>
>
>>...qabalistic has become almost synonymous with Byzantine
>>in its esoteric complexity upon which no two people agree,
>>at least much beyond 1...2...3 or more esoterically 0...1...2.
>
>
> term usage usually resonates with conceptual acquaintance. this
> is at times also reflected in spelling and usage of grammar of
> key terms (such as 'sefirot', 'keter', 'ain soph', 'gematria',
> 'kleppa', 'tree of life', etc.).
>
>
>>>is to
>>>apprehend and contemplate the reality of the cosmos.
>
>
>>Zero is a number.
>
>
> that is debated and debatable.
>
>
>>I recently found out that there is no number between zero
>>and one the way there is every other number...
>
>
> there is indeed another number between every other number
> and zero, but i'm not sure of its exact significance to you.
I will try to find the web page again that explains it, zero is a number
for nothing so there is nothing between nothing and one the way there is
between one and two, 1.0000000005 & etc. for example. i mean what's 0.5
(1/2) of nothing?
>
>
>>makes sense to me, even metaphorically.
>
>
> elaborate?
The big bang, creation of the universe & etc. 0 = 1 seems propagandistic
while 0 = 2 seems closer to a "Truth" to me.
>
>
>>>what is done thereafter is dependent upon the
>>>skills and needs manifesting as a result.
>
>
>>Before enlightenment....chopping wood and
>>carrying water, after enlightenment, chopping
>>wood and carrying water.
>
>
> first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain.
>
> having apprehended and contemplated the reality of the cosmos,
> one may then use this to one's advantage in prediction and
> influence. this is in fact why and how all divination may
> be employed as a magical projectile (forced readings).
>
> peace be with you,
>
Always a pleasure Naga, though some times it takes me a while to
translate you:)
> hara
Sat Nam,
Joseph
.
Joseph Littleshoes
> hara wrote:
>
>>
>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Zero is a number.
>>
>>
>>
>> that is debated and debatable.
>>
>>
>>> I recently found out that there is no number between zero and one the
>>> way there is every other number...
>>
>>
>>
>> there is indeed another number between every other number and zero,
>> but i'm not sure of its exact significance to you.
>
>
> I will try to find the web page again that explains it, zero is a number
> for nothing so there is nothing between nothing and one the way there is
> between one and two, 1.0000000005 & etc. for example. i mean what's 0.5
> (1/2) of nothing?
>
>>
>>
>>> makes sense to me, even metaphorically.
>>
>>
>>
>> elaborate?
>
>
> The big bang, creation of the universe & etc. 0 = 1 seems propagandistic
> while 0 = 2 seems closer to a "Truth" to me.
>
>
Of course, and naturally, i forgot to figure in the triple permutations
of the negative, in which case 0.5 is iirc the "Ain Soph"?
Ain = 0
Ain Soph = 0.0
Ain Soph Aur = 0.00
Smack me upside the head and call me stupid, wouldn't even argue with
you if ya did!
--
JL
p.s. never mind about the symbiotic duality neither part of which can
exist without the other.
-joe
--
JL
hara
shalom alechem, my kin!
Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>> hara wrote:
>>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>>> Zero is a number.
<snippage within>
>>>> I recently found out that there is no number between zero and one the
>>>> way there is every other number...
>>>
>>> there is indeed another number between every other number and zero,
>>> but i'm not sure of its exact significance to you.
>>
>> I will try to find the web page again that explains it, zero is a number
>> for nothing so there is nothing between nothing and one the way there is
>> between one and two, 1.0000000005 & etc. for example. i mean what's 0.5
>> (1/2) of nothing?
>> The big bang, creation of the universe & etc. 0 = 1 seems propagandistic
>> while 0 = 2 seems closer to a "Truth" to me.
>Of course, and naturally, i forgot to figure in the triple permutations
>of the negative, in which case 0.5 is iirc the "Ain Soph"?
>
>Ain = 0
>Ain Soph = 0.0
>Ain Soph Aur = 0.00
what does this mean to you? I have found little use for the
triple-negative, as you have it and is reflective of some
kabbalistic expression. what use does it have? why is of
any lasting value in contemplation of the cosmos or in
the pursuit of magical effects?
>Smack me upside the head and call me stupid, wouldn't
>even argue with you if ya did!
not everybody uses Jewish or Jewish-derived symbolism
for their magic or even for what they call 'qabalah'.
some of the systems of symbolism and cosmology that
are sported by modern mages constitutes only a single
instance of a particular teacher's writ on the subject,
so if you are a Goldawnian we might see you spouting
Luria, for example.
I wouldn't ever smack you upside the head, and your
intelligence and innovative mind have me considering
even your errors as something potentially valuable.
kind regards and peace be with you,
hara
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
--
yronwode.com@nagasiva; http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
consider the "Question": Needleman -- The Heart of Philosophy
the Gospel of Satan exists! it's real! http://gospel-of-satan
Joseph Littleshoes
An attempt to describe in text an "expansion" of the 0.
Which is of itself a non sequitur from a purely mathematical point of
view. How can "nothing" expand?
So we fall back on 0 (zero) as a symbol for that state of the universe
before it began. Possibly, though i don't understand Quantum Physics,
but possibly from what little i have read of pop explanations of it the
cabalistic triple expansion of the negative seems analogous to me to the
quantum flux postulated by some physicists as a precursor to the big bang?
> I have found little use for the
> triple-negative, as you have it and is reflective of some
> kabbalistic expression. what use does it have? why is of
> any lasting value in contemplation of the cosmos or in
> the pursuit of magical effects?
None of the above, as far as i know, and at the most only symbolic of an
experience of an awareness.
And as always one has to be careful not to mistake the symbol for the
thing itself.
Unfortunately i don't think a perception of 0 (zero) through
"transcendental experience" is capable of being spoken or written of
except in the most symbolic and oblique manner.
--
JL
.
Joseph Littleshoes
You are too kind,
Sir.
--
Joseph Littleshoes
>
> kind regards and peace be with you,
>
> hara
> luckymojo.com@nagasiva
.
hara
shalom alechem, my kin!
Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>hara wrote:
>> Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>>>I keep an updated copy of 777, a copy i update as regularly as i can.
>>>But that is merely an intellectual exercise and given some of the
>>>African concepts names and numbers i have ran across recently im not
>>>even sure of my attributions. Lwa = Dharma?
>
>No i meant "Lwa" but i have only recently fond a few pages with voodoo
>and hoodoo glossaries.
I'd be interested to know what other attributions are associated
with each and what leads to this marriage/syntax/intersection.
thanks for responding to me directly, also, as you will find
that i completely ignore all conversation which is juvenile
and tangental and will just turn my attention elsewhere if
others try to (and are allowed to) intervene in our substance.
>> that is a convention, yes.
>> do you keep your 777 online where others might view it?
>
>Oh gracious no, i wore out my old MDR (magicians desk reference) long
>ago and was just able to salvage most of my additions (spilled vial of
>patchouli oil:) but have never put it back in that one page format, each
>line on one page, as per the privately printed O.T.O. version.
what operating system and software were you using? I'm about to
embark on a database of occult authors, proprietors, and social
moguls, and am logging computer tools to facilitate occult aims.
it would be a valuable construction, i think, to co-create or to do
on one's own and have available as example to other working mages.
unlike some others, i don't think of 777 as sacrosanct, and as
anything other than in a minor way a convenient kernel upon
which to improve.
over time i've become very much more familiar with matrices of this
type in part because i've constructed a number and have geared some
toward specific workings. I resisted even *having* a copy of 777
for years until one of my kin gave one to me. my reasoning was very
specific and sound: i thought that cementing to any standard was a
crutch that i did not want to even be tempted doing, and i wasn't
completely sure what the use was for a standardized matrix. through
time i confirmed that, outside ceremonial orders, i had no need for
such a standard, as i naturally constructed them as a matter of my
ritual and investigatory occult activities and found them to be
more convincing that Crowley's and Bennet's efforts (anybody
ever seen what Crowley inherited?).
people don't talk about this kind of thing very often, i notice, at
least not in public. there are numerous variations possible coming
off of conventional symbolism in contemplation of numerous cultures,
and this proliferates substantially as multiple cultures are matched
up and some system considered for their resolution in the mind of
a working mage. in some sectors (Elements, for example) there are
roadblocks for this kind of reductionism, though i'm finding ways
of resolving this issue within the Book of Thoth.
my aim is two-fold (at least) in the construction of these matrices.
for one my aim is the conceptual and symbolical assimilation of all
cultures that interest me and seem to have at least a single if not
a multiple of resolved symbolic platforms. it intrigues me that the
Bennet/Crowley 777 (did Bennet have help from anyone?) was also not
completely satisfactory to Crowley as he published and Regardie
introduced it. it should NOT have been, as regards cultural
knowledge, and only the foolish or inexperienced have suggested
to me that it, or its like, might be. it is a tool, and as such,
the consciousness of the mage constructing it is as important a
factor as the realism of the cultural strands inherent to it.
in other words, like a magical object which one constructs, there
is no "right way" to construct such a matrix, only rational
criticisms as to its associations from the outside as regards the
cultures one is assimilating and the elegance or coherence of the
entirety. these will bear on the likelihood that the magical link
will be effective in its use so as to result in magical success,
adding the factors of the mage's skill and the circumstances and
components assembled for the spell.
my other, and more specific, aim in such constructions is for
a particular subjective and operational effect. whatever the
orthodox may contend, there is no optimum or sanctified set of
associations excepting for readymade tools such as the Harris-
Crowley Thoth deck (because it comes complete with them inside
its graphic symbolism), as i see it, because i don't have the
same axiomatic foundations from which they tend to base their
assessments.
my impression, therefore, is that, absent these realities, it
make smore sense to me to orient to my current consciousness
and the local culture and language around me, rather than to
assimilate some middle-eastern mythos and fashioned history
which is, to me, unlikely, as the 'best matrix dataset'.
>> is it substantially like the Bennett/Crowleyan matrix?
>
>Im not sure how you mean matrix
in a conventional sense: a lattice of key terms and the ideas
with which they are associated. this is a means to conceptually
associate very different kinds of things along a prospectively
harmonic key which one might "tug", magically, to effect one's
desires (mystical or more pragmatic). sometimes this is done
via meaning, and sometimes via a numerical evaluative. very
often it is done along proximate lines, such as having come
into physical proximity (as when one uses someone's clothing
or business card in conventional spellcasting for the icon
of the spell's target).
> but my Weiser edition
>"Introduction by Israel Regardie
>This edition includes Liber 777, Gematria (from Equinox Volume 1, Number
>5), and Sepher Sephiroth (from Equinox Volume 1, Number 8)... 336 pages"
>Is in various pieces and i most often refer to the few columns in Book
>IV if i need a reference.
oh yes i'm familiar with the published versions of this. so you were
building from that root in a 32-harmonic with the Crowleyan Tree of
Life. did you make refinements, or just add accumulatively?
re the suggestion to engage a Tree of Life's components and contemplate
its various strands, potentially creating an effect like synethesia:
>>>>divinatory orientation.
>>
>>>Interesting. Are you arguing randomness?
>>
>> no, system review like doing 16 readings with 16 (or 4) different
>> decks of Tarot (or cartomancy) cards to determine what the result
>> might be as to my present condition.
>"Oy Gevult!"
I've done this through long periods of time when assessing divination
tools or coming to try to learn about them (as when sequencing Yijing
with Tarot while learning about Yijing). my exploration of the Harris-
Crowley Thoth (my first Tarot deck, my favourite still) was such that
i wasn't feeling the New Age heart-felt support in the cards, or the
references that i tend to use in interpreting them, so i supplemented
with something more akin to my interests (neo-tantra, collage) that
had a supportive feel to it. the combination was quite satisfactory.
I have met one or maybe 2 others who did likewise (with the same
tools, and a number who were familiar enough with both so as to be
able to understand my expression about them), and within the past
few years i've focussed more on magic (talisman-making, mojo bag
construction, etc.), and on the construction of the Book of Thoth
as i understand it within my working chamber/contemplations.
>> I've used 2 decks this way
>> and found it very helpful (Secret Dakini and Thoth Tarot). often
>> in the reverse order as the Thoth was more cutting and discipline
>> and the Dakini was all heart and support.
>
>Hmm i find it to be the exact opposite, the Crowley more
>abstruse and mystically subtle and the Dakini more
>"Cutting Edge" and to the point, almost blunt.
interesting. could be how our consciousness intersects them both.
you haven't said anything of their compassion or friendliness.
>I have tried using not only numerous decks but different tools
>for one reading, a tarot reading complemented or accented by
>an I Ching reading,
I've done this also. it seems it must be a commonplace for those
who are interested in occultism for any length of time to engage
this kind of multi-tool usage. it must vary, particularly for
those who see it as a single-line trajectory of mystical works.
>often with a good deal of astrology thrown in along with some gemetria
>and other numerological manipulations, and a touch of bibliomancy just
>to top it all off in one session.
one may 'home in' within such a varied sounding.
>But i stopped doing that maybe 15 years ago to concentrate
>on the single tool of the Thoth deck.
yes, that's a good way to refine your skills and expand that
tool's usefuleness to you.
>>>>the purpose of receiving the transmission
elaborating here now that i know of your meaning, i was very
interested in reflecting on the term 'transmission' here as
the significance of 'kabbalah' (i.e. my response was in
reflection of the Jewish mystical society and its workings,
manifesting to the outside world as writings or spoken
expressions; this has correlates amongst Christians and
neoGnostics).
>>>Isn't that an assumption?
>>
>> damn straight. I am not even sure i know what you mean here, but
>> you are quite correct that i made a decision as to his meaning,
>> a supposition, assumption, and ran with it.
>If i read you correctly you were implying if not assuming
>not only a validity
I don't know what 'validity' might mean in such a context.
I don't assume that the conventional notions of religion
are literally reflective of the real (that any specific
cult has a handle on the Creator of the cosmos and single
true authority of the universe, no; i don't have evidence
that such a Creation occurred or that such an authority
exists in any sense, though i fantasize my God there upon
occasion).
>but an existence to any message that might be received.
that seems obvious that a large body of data is being
transmitted (in books and in personal instruction).
>I question the objective existence of the "transmission"
>even more than any message that might be assumed to be
>of it.
strange. perhaps we have different ideas about it then
and i'll watch for your more central meaning.
>I think a study can produce a gestalt or result that
>may not have been designed into the system.
agreed. not sure how that factors into what you're
describing as a possibly nonextant transmission.
maybe you're talking about matrices that we create
on our own, and the fact that we may not be truly
engaging anything that is 'sending' something. that
seems quite logical to me, and if that is your
meaning, i would agree and say that it would be
better described as 'delving' (a single-pointed
self-exploration and mystical endeavour) which
may or may not have other repercussions.
too often in conventional occultism only the large-
scale systems and physically active endeavours are
deemed likely to yield results, but where divination
and magic intersect i think there is a broad range
of possibility that most fail to understand. your
observation that there may be, in reality, no
"transmitter" is a helpful refinement of some
personal and divinatory orientation as i would
describe it, and it analyzes, if so, the personal
delving that divination and contemplative magic
may include for its actual process.
granted that there is in actuality no transmitter,
does this affect how you relate to it or what you
call it?
>>>that there not only is something there to receive
>>
>> in a conventional sense it is mappable, traceable,
>> in books. in an oral sense it is attested to by bodies.
>
>The existence of the tools, their traditional uses,
>and the claims made for them.
I will now divide between responses as related to their
possible topics:
kabbalah:
there is a hefty body of literature which is published
reflective of conventional kabbalistic society and
enterprise. a good deal of it is symbolic and in a manner
representational. axiomatic supposition that there is
knowledge of a pragmatic assistance to the mage or
mystic gives the emphasis on its conveyance (which i
would *contrast* with the transmission of something
like 'gnosis' or 'bodhicitta') some logic. that there
is such information and that there is a human being
that receives it seems completely obvious to me.
delving:
that there may be no 'receiver' due to the manner
of exploration (solitary) and that being explored
(oneself) seems quite substantiable, yes, due to
the nature of the process.
>>>but some actual thing received.
>>
>> traditional doctrines or, like in Buddhism, some torch of
>> consciousness or wisdom, perhaps. it extends no doubt from
>> the lowest (mere information) to the highest (wisdom).
>
>Yes but the suggestion that such a thing exists could be more important
>than the actual existence that is, if it exists at all, possibly the
>result of the individual striving for understanding more than it is
>buddhism, dharma, lwa, spirits, gods, tools, techniques, teachings etc.
a motivating factor. agreed. I've usually let this run in the
background as one of my 'potentially more accurate ways to
understand what is going on'. another name for it i discovered
amongst practicing Buddhists: cognitive tool. the idea is that
there is no more than imaginary reality to the described beings
and what was of importance was the engagement of the system
with motivation and sincerety in order to yield a personal
refinement of some merit.
>>>One could just as easily see a system that promises a
>>>specific result to be meaningless in itself or what it
>>>purports to be and something altogether different.
>> only the ardent practitioners of systems promise results.
>> they are willing to neglect the conditions of the mage,
>> or maintain the power of their faith.
>Im not sure i know what you mean .... "a little knowledge
>is a dangerous thing."?
yes and associated with your elaborate it does make much sense
to me. I'm not sure that the adage you employ here is accurate
very much of the time. typically it relates to insufficient
assimilation of technology which has potentially dangerous
application, and i don't see mysticism as having that often.
I don't even usually assume that magic has that potentiality,
though i am careful in avoiding symbolism in my own employ
that might lead to it (not burning black candles that would
affect my current, dedicatd tutelary relationships as
offerings upon my altar such as black couples or vulva, etc.).
>>>...qabalistic has become almost synonymous with Byzantine
>>>in its esoteric complexity upon which no two people agree,
>>>at least much beyond 1...2...3 or more esoterically 0...1...2.
<snip>
>>>I recently found out that there is no number between zero
>>>and one the way there is every other number...
>>
>> there is indeed another number between every other number
>> and zero, but i'm not sure of its exact significance to you.
>
>I will try to find the web page again that explains it, zero is
>a number for nothing so there is nothing between nothing and
>one the way there is between one and two, 1.0000000005 & etc.
>for example. i mean what's 0.5 (1/2) of nothing?
>>>makes sense to me, even metaphorically.
>>
>> elaborate?
>
>The big bang, creation of the universe & etc. 0 = 1 seems
>propagandistic while 0 = 2 seems closer to a "Truth" to me.
aha! ok, yes i do see your meaning now. in contrast, i have
no evidence that any such "Creation" occurred and frankly
find theologists logically falling all over themselves into
fallacies trying to salvage their outworn cosmologies, even
going so far as to construct novel renewals of unusable
'proofs' such as Aquinas' Argument By Design refashioned
into today's ridiculous 'Intelligent Design' platforms.
>Always a pleasure Naga, though some times it
>takes me a while to translate you:)
you're not alone. I've developed my lexicon in part in
the wake of Dodgeson's Humpty Dumpty and in part as a
defense mechanism to save me from wasting my time on
trolls and ingrates, of which you are not part.
peace be with you,
--
yronwode.com@nagasiva; http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
consider the "Question": Needleman -- The Heart of Philosophy
the Gospel of Satan exists! it's real! http://gospel-of-satan
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
nagasiva
Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
<large snippage>
>>>>>>Zero is a number.
>>>>>>I recently found out that there is no number between zero and one the
>>>>>>way there is every other number...
an integer, yes.
>>>>I will try to find the web page again that explains it,
>>>>...zero is a number for nothing so there is nothing between
>>>>nothing and one the way there is between one and two,
>>>>1.0000000005 & etc. for example. i mean what's 0.5
>>>>(1/2) of nothing?
.0000000005 seems to be a number. so is 1/16.
>>>>The big bang, creation of the universe & etc. 0 = 1 seems
>>>>propagandistic while 0 = 2 seems closer to a "Truth" to me.
>>
>>>Of course, and naturally, i forgot to figure in the triple permutations
>>>of the negative, in which case 0.5 is iirc the "Ain Soph"?
>>>
>>>Ain = 0
>>>Ain Soph = 0.0
>>>Ain Soph Aur = 0.00
>>
>> what does this mean to you?
>
>An attempt to describe in text an "expansion" of the 0.
>
>Which is of itself a non sequitur from a purely mathematical
>point of view. How can "nothing" expand?
in algebra and in trigonometry (with which i had some good
familiarity in college and high school) there are indeed ways
not only to "expand" zero as a tool for algebra but also to
"expand" on infinity (both of which i consider to be strictly
conceptual 'numbers' without ontological referents).
for example, formulaically, expanding zero can come
from strict geometrics such as:
given: y = x-2x^2-2
and: -y = 1-2x^2
.'. -(1-2x^2) = x-x^2-2
.'. 2x^2+1 = x-x^2
.'. x^2 - x + 1 = 0
.'. (x-1)*(x+1) = 0
and then we can solve from this conventional equation so as
to yield a graph of potential results defined by (x-1)*(x+1)=0.
apologies if any of this is nonstandard. I haven't touched a
math book since i stopped attending and began sitting in on
graduate level philosophy courses in my young adult years
and then moved on to personal studies in occultism/religion.
the point, however, is that zero may be "expanded" through
variables and formulae, and used within this "expansion".
>So we fall back on 0 (zero) as a symbol for that state
>of the universe before it began.
what gives reason to think that this cosmos *had* a beginning?
>Possibly, though i don't understand Quantum Physics,
I won't touch that subject.
>but possibly from what little i have read of pop explanations of it the
>cabalistic triple expansion of the negative seems analogous to me to the
>quantum flux postulated by some physicists as a precursor to the big bang?
never heard of it. that doesn't sound conventional in
Kabbalah or in Qabalah except perhaps recently.
>> I have found little use for the
>> triple-negative, as you have it and is reflective of some
>> kabbalistic expression. what use does it have? why is of
>> any lasting value in contemplation of the cosmos or in
>> the pursuit of magical effects?
>None of the above, as far as i know, and at the most only symbolic of an
>experience of an awareness.
mathematical poetics akin to Crowley's absolute value
'0=2' metaphor:
|1 - 1| = |-1 - 1| ?
.'. 0 = 2
again, havent reviewed Crowley's thng in his Thothbook for a
while and may have misremembered it. mathematically it is not
sanguine, just a helpful metaphor, like his homunculous men.
>And as always one has to be careful not to mistake the
>symbol for the thing itself.
particularly where poetry is concerned.
>Unfortunately i don't think a perception of 0 (zero) through
>"transcendental experience" is capable of being spoken or written of
>except in the most symbolic and oblique manner.
those mystical doohickeys are often unutterable or ineffable.
many of the things associated with 0 can be expressed (such
as the lack of sensation of a thing).
nagasiva
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@nagasiva ----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html --
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html --
-- http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/ --
--------------------------------------------
Joseph Littleshoes
> 50071215 xi!
>
> shalom alechem, my kin!
>
> Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>
>>hara wrote:
>>
>>>Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>>>
>>>>I keep an updated copy of 777, a copy i update as regularly as i can.
>>>>But that is merely an intellectual exercise and given some of the
>>>>African concepts names and numbers i have ran across recently im not
>>>>even sure of my attributions. Lwa = Dharma?
>>
>>No i meant "Lwa" but i have only recently fond a few pages with voodoo
>>and hoodoo glossaries.
>
>
> I'd be interested to know what other attributions are associated
> with each and what leads to this marriage/syntax/intersection.
I will dissect and translate your "transmission" over the next few days.
I have found some of it i don't need to reference as, in so far as i
think i understand you, i think we are in agreement.
But of what's left, at least 2/3 of it i have not, at this moment a clue
what you are writing. I have found that i can "translate" you but your
writing, as i have written before, is very dense and so it takes me a while.
>
>>>that is a convention, yes.
>>>do you keep your 777 online where others might view it?
>>
>>Oh gracious no, i wore out my old MDR (magicians desk reference) long
>>ago and was just able to salvage most of my additions (spilled vial of
>>patchouli oil:) but have never put it back in that one page format, each
>>line on one page, as per the privately printed O.T.O. version.
>
>
> what operating system and software were you using?
I was talking about various versions of "hard texts" not "soft ware". I
have a PDF 777 but i cant edit it, and the one html version i have seen
on the net looks so bad on the net i never thought of making a copy of it.
>i don't think of 777 as sacrosanct, and as
> anything other than in a minor way a convenient kernel upon
> which to improve.
I think Crowley said or wrote much the same thing about it. And of
course in the essays he questioned the validity of any such a compendium.
>
> over time i've become very much more familiar with matrices of this
> type in part because i've constructed a number and have geared some
> toward specific workings. I resisted even *having* a copy of 777
> for years until one of my kin gave one to me. my reasoning was very
> specific and sound: i thought that cementing to any standard was a
> crutch that i did not want to even be tempted doing,
If i had found Agrippa first, but it were the essays in 777 that led me
to Agrippa and other "tabulators."
> and i wasn't
> completely sure what the use was for a standardized matrix. through
> time i confirmed that, outside ceremonial orders, i had no need for
> such a standard, as i naturally constructed them as a matter of my
> ritual and investigatory occult activities and found them to be
> more convincing that Crowley's and Bennet's efforts (anybody
> ever seen what Crowley inherited?).
There might even be a natural or "organic" matrix there to be discovered.
>
> people don't talk about this kind of thing very often, i notice, at
> least not in public. there are numerous variations possible coming
> off of conventional symbolism in contemplation of numerous cultures,
> and this proliferates substantially as multiple cultures are matched
> up and some system considered for their resolution in the mind of
> a working mage. in some sectors (Elements, for example) there are
> roadblocks for this kind of reductionism, though i'm finding ways
> of resolving this issue within the Book of Thoth.
There are also situations where a "true believer" cant or wont accept
any variation on a theme.
>
> my aim is two-fold (at least) in the construction of these matrices.
>
> for one my aim is the conceptual and symbolical assimilation of all
> cultures that interest me and seem to have at least a single if not
> a multiple of resolved symbolic platforms. it intrigues me that the
> Bennet/Crowley 777 (did Bennet have help from anyone?) was also not
> completely satisfactory to Crowley as he published and Regardie
> introduced it.
> it should NOT have been, as regards cultural
> knowledge, and only the foolish or inexperienced have suggested
> to me that it, or its like, might be.
Ok here i would ask you to explain that last sentence, i don't
understand it.
> it is a tool,
yes ok
> and as such,
> the consciousness of the mage constructing it is as important a
> factor as the realism of the cultural strands inherent to it.
If i understand you than i would agree, what one brings the system is as
important, if not more so, than the system itself?
>
> in other words, like a magical object which one constructs, there
> is no "right way" to construct such a matrix, only rational
> criticisms as to its associations from the outside as regards the
> cultures one is assimilating and the elegance or coherence of the
> entirety. these will bear on the likelihood that the magical link
> will be effective in its use so as to result in magical success,
> adding the factors of the mage's skill and the circumstances and
> components assembled for the spell.
And that, that, CAN be done is an easy assumption to make for various
reasons. IF it can be done, how it is done, seems to me, less important.
>
> my other, and more specific, aim in such constructions is for
> a particular subjective and operational effect. whatever the
> orthodox may contend, there is no optimum or sanctified set of
> associations excepting for readymade tools such as the Harris-
> Crowley Thoth deck (because it comes complete with them inside
> its graphic symbolism), as i see it, because i don't have the
> same axiomatic foundations from which they tend to base their
> assessments.
>
> my impression, therefore, is that, absent these realities, it
> make smore sense to me to orient to my current consciousness
> and the local culture and language around me, rather than to
> assimilate some middle-eastern mythos and fashioned history
> which is, to me, unlikely, as the 'best matrix dataset'.
What can i say, i like reading myth and legend of other cultures, i like
trying to integrate them into what i have decided about "Magick" is
relevant to me.
>
>
>>>is it substantially like the Bennett/Crowleyan matrix?
>>
>>Im not sure how you mean matrix
>
>
> in a conventional sense: a lattice
Conceptually, for me, more like a ladder, in its "conventional" sense
that can be ascended or descended, but at the same time a sort of
spherical version of a tessaract.
>of key terms and the ideas
> with which they are associated. this is a means to conceptually
> associate very different kinds of things along a prospectively
> harmonic key which one might "tug", magically, to effect one's
> desires (mystical or more pragmatic).
Do you mean have an effect on ones desires or effect as in getting what
one desires?
> sometimes this is done
> via meaning, and sometimes via a numerical evaluative. very
> often it is done along proximate lines, such as having come
> into physical proximity (as when one uses someone's clothing
> or business card in conventional spellcasting for the icon
> of the spell's target).
>
>
>>but my Weiser edition
>>"Introduction by Israel Regardie
>>This edition includes Liber 777, Gematria (from Equinox Volume 1, Number
>>5), and Sepher Sephiroth (from Equinox Volume 1, Number 8)... 336 pages"
>>Is in various pieces and i most often refer to the few columns in Book
>>IV if i need a reference.
>
>
> oh yes i'm familiar with the published versions of this. so you were
> building from that root in a 32-harmonic with the Crowleyan Tree of
> Life. did you make refinements, or just add accumulatively?
Accumulatevly...i think?
>
> re the suggestion to engage a Tree of Life's components and contemplate
> its various strands, potentially creating an effect like synethesia:
>
>
>>>>>divinatory orientation.
>>>
>>>>Interesting. Are you arguing randomness?
>>>
>>>no, system review like doing 16 readings with 16 (or 4) different
>>>decks of Tarot (or cartomancy) cards to determine what the result
>>>might be as to my present condition.
>
>
>>"Oy Gevult!"
>
>
> I've done this through long periods of time when assessing divination
> tools or coming to try to learn about them (as when sequencing Yijing
> with Tarot while learning about Yijing). my exploration of the Harris-
> Crowley Thoth (my first Tarot deck, my favourite still) was such that
> i wasn't feeling the New Age heart-felt support in the cards, or the
> references that i tend to use in interpreting them, so i supplemented
> with something more akin to my interests (neo-tantra, collage) that
> had a supportive feel to it. the combination was quite satisfactory.
> I have met one or maybe 2 others who did likewise (with the same
> tools, and a number who were familiar enough with both so as to be
> able to understand my expression about them), and within the past
> few years i've focussed more on magic (talisman-making, mojo bag
> construction, etc.), and on the construction of the Book of Thoth
> as i understand it within my working chamber/contemplations.
And we all know how painful that can be:)
Seriously, i admire not only your ability to describe what you are
doing, but the doing of it even more. I personally have moved away
from actual objects to more "astral" efforts.
Yes thank you very much for the hawk feather, it is coming back home
after a few months, and now that it has been in its recipients
possession it has, i feel, become "associated" with that person, along
with the citrine quartz, sunflower petals, cinnamon and the pantacle i
constructed for the medicine bag.
>
>
>>>I've used 2 decks this way
>>>and found it very helpful (Secret Dakini and Thoth Tarot). often
>>>in the reverse order as the Thoth was more cutting and discipline
>>>and the Dakini was all heart and support.
>>
>>Hmm i find it to be the exact opposite, the Crowley more
>>abstruse and mystically subtle and the Dakini more
>>"Cutting Edge" and to the point, almost blunt.
>
>
> interesting. could be how our consciousness intersects them both.
> you haven't said anything of their compassion or friendliness.
The Thoth was love at first sight, a mad passionate affair that still
burns brightly, my one true love, but there are several decks i have
strayed with, the Dakini being one i actually worked professionally
with, for a while.
>
>
>>I have tried using not only numerous decks but different tools
>>for one reading, a tarot reading complemented or accented by
>>an I Ching reading,
>
>
> I've done this also. it seems it must be a commonplace for those
> who are interested in occultism for any length of time to engage
> this kind of multi-tool usage. it must vary, particularly for
> those who see it as a single-line trajectory of mystical works.
>
>
>>often with a good deal of astrology thrown in along with some gemetria
>>and other numerological manipulations, and a touch of bibliomancy just
>>to top it all off in one session.
>
>
> one may 'home in' within such a varied sounding.
>
>
>>But i stopped doing that maybe 15 years ago to concentrate
>>on the single tool of the Thoth deck.
>
>
> yes, that's a good way to refine your skills and expand that
> tool's usefuleness to you.
>
>
>>>>>the purpose of receiving the transmission
>
>
> elaborating here now that i know of your meaning, i was very
> interested in reflecting on the term 'transmission' here as
> the significance of 'kabbalah' (i.e. my response was in
> reflection of the Jewish mystical society and its workings,
> manifesting to the outside world as writings or spoken
> expressions; this has correlates amongst Christians and
> neoGnostics).
I tend to think its not so much that i am receiving a transmission as
much as i am constructing the ability or perhaps mastering the ability
to decipher chaos, to see and sometimes impose patterns where none exist.
In some cases i do think a chaotic state may by "crystallized" just by
becoming aware of it.
All so, whether it makes any sense or not i have had transcendental or,
some might argue, psychotic experiences with the Thoth deck i have never
had with any other deck.
>
>
>>>>Isn't that an assumption?
>>>
>>>damn straight. I am not even sure i know what you mean here, but
>>>you are quite correct that i made a decision as to his meaning,
>>>a supposition, assumption, and ran with it.
>
>
>>If i read you correctly you were implying if not assuming
>>not only a validity
>
>
> I don't know what 'validity' might mean in such a context.
Ultimately the validity of the transmission is its existence, which i
question, but also, whether there is a more correct form of information
that could be said to be transmitted. I do not accept this but i
acknowledge the theoretical possibility.
> I don't assume that the conventional notions of religion
> are literally reflective of the real (that any specific
> cult has a handle on the Creator of the cosmos and single
> true authority of the universe, no; i don't have evidence
> that such a Creation occurred or that such an authority
> exists in any sense, though i fantasize my God there upon
> occasion).
>
>
>>but an existence to any message that might be received.
>
>
> that seems obvious that a large body of data is being
> transmitted (in books and in personal instruction).
And i was thinking more in the sense of "enlightenment" or satori or
samadhi, the "light bulb" moment.
>
>
>>I question the objective existence of the "transmission"
>>even more than any message that might be assumed to be
>>of it.
>
>
> strange. perhaps we have different ideas about it then
> and i'll watch for your more central meaning.
Essentially i think cultivating the 'Transmission" may create it,
seeking an answer may create the answer rather than there being some
objective answer waiting to be found.
>
>
>>I think a study can produce a gestalt or result that
>>may not have been designed into the system.
>
>
> agreed. not sure how that factors into what you're
> describing as a possibly nonextant transmission.
We merely call it a transmission till what ever that transmission is
changes our perception of it.
>
> maybe you're talking about matrices that we create
> on our own, and the fact that we may not be truly
> engaging anything that is 'sending' something. that
> seems quite logical to me, and if that is your
> meaning, i would agree and say that it would be
> better described as 'delving' (a single-pointed
> self-exploration and mystical endeavour) which
> may or may not have other repercussions.
I would replace "delving" with "exploring" and agree with the rest.
>
> too often in conventional occultism only the large-
> scale systems and physically active endeavours are
> deemed likely to yield results,
By whom?
> but where divination
> and magic intersect i think there is a broad range
> of possibility that most fail to understand. your
> observation that there may be, in reality, no
> "transmitter" is a helpful refinement of some
> personal and divinatory orientation as i would
> describe it, and it analyzes, if so, the personal
> delving that divination and contemplative magic
> may include for its actual process.
>
> granted that there is in actuality no transmitter,
> does this affect how you relate to it or what you
> call it?
Sure, "it" does not cease to exist, merely any objective transmission,
which is replaced by exploration and discovery and creation with in the
organic matrix that already exists.
>
>
>>>>that there not only is something there to receive
>>>
>>>in a conventional sense it is mappable, traceable,
>>>in books. in an oral sense it is attested to by bodies.
>>
The existence of the tools, their traditional uses, and the claims made
for them are mappable.
>>The existence of the tools, their traditional uses,
>>and the claims made for them.
>
And the rest im saving for tomorrow, though when it comes to math.....
--
JL
.
Joseph Littleshoes
> hi Joseph,
>
> Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>
> <large snippage>
>
>>>>>>>Zero is a number.
>>>>>>>I recently found out that there is no number between zero and one the
>>>>>>>way there is every other number...
>
>
> an integer, yes.
>
>
>>>>>I will try to find the web page again that explains it,
>>>>>...zero is a number for nothing so there is nothing between
>>>>>nothing and one the way there is between one and two,
>>>>>1.0000000005 & etc. for example. i mean what's 0.5
>>>>>(1/2) of nothing?
>
>
> .0000000005 seems to be a number. so is 1/16.
But if 0 is a symbol for nothing how can their be .5 or any .0005 of
nothing?
Now i will grant you that 0.0 might possibly be conceptual and allowing
that then it follows that 0.00 and 0.000 would be at least theoretically
possible.
>
>
>>>>>The big bang, creation of the universe & etc. 0 = 1 seems
>>>>>propagandistic while 0 = 2 seems closer to a "Truth" to me.
>>>
>>>>Of course, and naturally, i forgot to figure in the triple permutations
>>>>of the negative, in which case 0.5 is iirc the "Ain Soph"?
>>>>
>>>>Ain = 0
>>>>Ain Soph = 0.0
>>>>Ain Soph Aur = 0.00
>>>
>>>what does this mean to you?
>>
>>An attempt to describe in text an "expansion" of the 0.
>>
>>Which is of itself a non sequitur from a purely mathematical
>>point of view. How can "nothing" expand?
>
>
> in algebra and in trigonometry (with which i had some good
> familiarity in college and high school) there are indeed ways
> not only to "expand" zero as a tool for algebra but also to
> "expand" on infinity (both of which i consider to be strictly
> conceptual 'numbers' without ontological referents).
Ah well the "ontological" leaves your statement open to interpretation,
im not exactly sure of the epistemology of your "ontological."
>
> for example, formulaically, expanding zero can come
> from strict geometrics such as:
>
> given: y = x-2x^2-2
>
> and: -y = 1-2x^2
>
> .'. -(1-2x^2) = x-x^2-2
>
> .'. 2x^2+1 = x-x^2
>
> .'. x^2 - x + 1 = 0
>
> .'. (x-1)*(x+1) = 0
"nothing from nothing leaves nothing but you got to be a something if
you want to...." Billy Preston does algebra?
I warned you about my lack of math skills, and i don't understand your
above formula, but if i grasp any part of it you are dealing with
"negative numbers" -1 x -1 = 0?
>
> and then we can solve from this conventional equation so as
> to yield a graph of potential results defined by (x-1)*(x+1)=0.
>
> apologies if any of this is nonstandard. I haven't touched a
> math book since i stopped attending and began sitting in on
> graduate level philosophy courses in my young adult years
> and then moved on to personal studies in occultism/religion.
>
> the point, however, is that zero may be "expanded" through
> variables and formulae, and used within this "expansion".
Is that an ontological use of zero? my guess is that it is not? it does
seem more mathematical than teleological or cosmological, of course as a
metaphor it works very well, but in practice it seems, to me, at best
"the noise of the machinery" and by that i mean a symbolic logic
expression of a naturally occurring phenomena, we don't consciously
calculate the distance or the arc of an object before we reach out and
grasp it.
>
>
>>So we fall back on 0 (zero) as a symbol for that state
>>of the universe before it began.
>
>
> what gives reason to think that this cosmos *had* a beginning?
er....ipsi dixit.." he typed ingenuously?" but it just seems to me what
is, began, granted that beginning could have been one of an infinite
series of beginnings.
A mere lack of something is not a total absence of everything.
My fatal flaw is probly that i associate the number 0 with the idea of
the Tao or its ilk.
--
JL
>
> nagasiva
.
nagasiva
hi Joseph!
Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>nagasiva wrote:
>> Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>>>>>>>> Zero is a number.
>>>>>>>> I recently found out that there is no
>>>>>>>> number between zero and one the
>>>>>>>> way there is every other number...
>> an integer, yes.
>>
>>>>>> ...zero is a number for nothing so there is nothing between
>>>>>> nothing and one the way there is between one and two,
>>>>>> 1.0000000005 & etc. for example. i mean what's 0.5
>>>>>> (1/2) of nothing?
>>
>> .0000000005 seems to be a number. so is 1/16.
>
> But if 0 is a symbol for nothing
it is a symbol for the centerpoint of a grid extending
outward in four directions, away from which we have an
absolute value of sequential integers. "nothing" is a
concept with variable relevance.
> how can their be .5 or any .0005 of nothing?
1/2 x 0 = 0 ; .0005 x 0 = 0
.5 is a decimal number, as is .0005. you can measure
half of 1 inch, for example, or even 5 micrometers.
> Now i will grant you that 0.0 might possibly be
> conceptual
good.
> and allowing that then it follows that 0.00 and
> 0.000 would be at least theoretically possible.
they seem the same exactly to me. the extra zeros
at the end don't make one whit of difference.
>>>>>>The big bang, creation of the universe & etc. 0 = 1 seems
>>>>>>propagandistic while 0 = 2 seems closer to a "Truth" to me.
>>>>
>>>>>Of course, and naturally, i forgot to figure in the triple permutations
>>>>>of the negative, in which case 0.5 is iirc the "Ain Soph"?
here you say 0.5 is "ain soph" but below you say
>>>>>Ain = 0
>>>>>Ain Soph = 0.0
>>>>>Ain Soph Aur = 0.00
which is it? is it both?
>>>>what does this mean to you?
>>>
>>>An attempt to describe in text an "expansion" of the 0.
>>>
>>>Which is of itself a non sequitur from a purely mathematical
>>>point of view. How can "nothing" expand?
>>
>> in algebra and in trigonometry (with which i had some good
>> familiarity in college and high school) there are indeed ways
>> not only to "expand" zero as a tool for algebra but also to
>> "expand" on infinity (both of which i consider to be strictly
>> conceptual 'numbers' without ontological referents).
> Ah well the "ontological" leaves your statement open
> to interpretation,
well, can you describe an experiential referent for either
"nothing" of "infinity" which allows you to see their
whole (completely nothing or all of infinity)?
> im not exactly sure of the epistemology of your
> "ontological."
of or related to "being". there isn't 'nothing', there
isn't 'infinity'. these aren't really experiential,
though there are approximates based on subjective
perception wherein we are perceptionless (nothing)
or we have a sense of boundarilessness (infinity).
>> for example, formulaically, expanding zero can come
>> from strict geometrics such as:
>> given: y = x-2x^2-2
>> and: -y = 1-2x^2
>> .'. -(1-2x^2) = x-x^2-2
>> .'. 2x^2+1 = x-x^2
>> .'. x^2 - x + 1 = 0
>> .'. (x-1)*(x+1) = 0
> "nothing from nothing leaves nothing but you got
> to be a something if you want to...."
> Billy Preston does algebra?
>
> i don't understand your above formula,
oh the formula isn't important. the important part
was that the fact that you can get things equal to
0 enables an expansion of the understanding of these
kinds of graphs and equations. a batch of gook is
said to be equal to 0, 2 batches of gook are. then
we can equate the 2 batches of gook and solve.
> but if i grasp any part of it you are dealing with
> "negative numbers" -1 x -1 = 0?
sometimes sure, particularly in calculation.
>> and then we can solve from this conventional equation so as
>> to yield a graph of potential results defined by (x-1)*(x+1)=0.
>> the point, however, is that zero may be "expanded" through
>> variables and formulae, and used within this "expansion".
> Is that an ontological use of zero? my guess is that
> it is not? it does seem more mathematical than
> teleological or cosmological,
exactly.
> of course as a metaphor it works very well, but
> in practice it seems, to me, at best "the noise
> of the machinery" and by that i mean a symbolic
> logic expression of a naturally occurring
> phenomena,
this kind of thing is sometimes used in engineering,
so it does have practical application. the fact of
the number 0 is symbolic, however. there is never
a point where the page vaporizes or the bridge that
is being built disappears or extends to infinite
weight or mass or something. :)
> we don't consciously calculate the distance or
> the arc of an object before we reach out and
> grasp it.
precisely.
>>> So we fall back on 0 (zero) as a symbol for
>>> that state of the universe before it began.
> ...it just seems to me what is, began,
a seemingness. that is popular in the Western world.
> granted that beginning could have been one of
> an infinite series of beginnings.
then it wouldn't have been a 'Beginning' in an
originating sense.
>>>Unfortunately i don't think a perception of 0 (zero) through
>>>"transcendental experience" is capable of being spoken or written of
>>>except in the most symbolic and oblique manner.
>>
>> those mystical doohickeys are often unutterable or ineffable.
>> many of the things associated with 0 can be expressed (such
>> as the lack of sensation of a thing).
>
> A mere lack of something is not a total absence of everything.
completely agreed.
> My fatal flaw is probly that i associate the number 0 with
> the idea of the Tao or its ilk.
that's not unique. there's the whole "O" Chinese brush painting
associated with Tao and Zen, the 10 Circle Drawings made
reference (albeit imaginatively) in the alt.magick quiz, etc.
nagasiva
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
hara
shalom alechem, my kin!
hi Joseph!
[777 to whose Table of Factors i have most
often referred in this text, even recently!]
> If i had found Agrippa first, but it were the
> essays in 777 that led me to Agrippa and
> other "tabulators."
Agrippa's organization is conceptual or something.
it isn't numerical. Levi's seems numerical, though.
>>>but my Weiser edition
>>>"Introduction by Israel Regardie
>>>This edition includes Liber 777, Gematria (from Equinox Volume 1, Number
>>>5), and Sepher Sephiroth (from Equinox Volume 1, Number 8)... 336 pages"
there is another author i saw via Amazon.com recently
quite beyond
"Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia: A Complete Guide to
Cabalistic Magic", by David Godwin
http://www.amazon.com/Godwins-Cabalistic-Encyclopedia-Llewellyns-Sourcebook/dp/1567183247
which i have enjoyed very much, there is also now:
"Complete Magician's Tables", by Stephen Skinner
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738711640
reviews welcome.
I'd like to know about more of this kind of reference
and will probably eventually acquire both of them.
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@nagasiva ----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html --
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html --
-- http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/ --
--------------------------------------------
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Joseph Littleshoes
> 50080108
>
> shalom alechem, my kin!
>
> hi Joseph!
>
> [777 to whose Table of Factors i have most
> often referred in this text, even recently!]
>
>
>>If i had found Agrippa first, but it were the
>>essays in 777 that led me to Agrippa and
>>other "tabulators."
>
>
> Agrippa's organization is conceptual or something.
> it isn't numerical. Levi's seems numerical, though.
Aggripa iirc is 'associative' or 'sympathetic' though how those original
associations were made seems kind of arbitrary to me.
But then at the same time, so is the alphabet, arbitrary symbols to
represent sounds.
Various "imitative" factors are also considered iirc. The sun flower
blossom not only has a vague resemblance to the solar disc but can be
seen to "imitate" the movement of the sun in the sky, the bloom
following the motion of the sun in the sky. I accept the association
with cinnamon but don't really understand it.
Same with rose and spirituality, yes in its shape the bloom is circular
which can symbolize one thing, but its aroma, no matter how pleasant
always reminds me of stale, aged, if not antique, mustiness.
For me the aromas and colours of lilac and violet and fresh mown grass
seem very abundant of life and fecundity in a very pleasant and fertile way.
Obviously with Mars as War we get blood and red and the iron age
weapons, but the number 5?
--
JL
.
Brett
<jpst...@isp.com> muttered intensely:
>Aggripa iirc is 'associative' or 'sympathetic' though how those original
>associations were made seems kind of arbitrary to me.
It would seem to me that the correspondences of things are related not
just to physical similarities, but to societal and cultural
associations, perhaps a large amount of which are not applicable in
our society and culture.
> I accept the association with cinnamon but don't really understand it.
Then it's pretty much a valueless association.
>Obviously with Mars as War we get blood and red and the iron age
>weapons, but the number 5?
A list of correspondences has about as much value as the several pages
of meanings you can find for each tarot card. Associations are
personal and/or cultural and are thus more or less meaningless to
others. I would recommend going over the list of correspondences and
finding those which convey meaning and value as appropriate to you,
and ignoring all others.
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:56:01 CST, Joseph Littleshoes
> <jpst...@isp.com> muttered intensely:
>
>
>
>>Aggripa iirc is 'associative' or 'sympathetic' though how those original
>>associations were made seems kind of arbitrary to me.
>
>
> It would seem to me that the correspondences of things are related not
> just to physical similarities, but to societal and cultural
> associations, perhaps a large amount of which are not applicable in
> our society and culture.
Especially in the modern west with the spread of awareness the relative
unimportance of the earth in the cosmos.
In Agrippas time and amongst so called "primitive" peoples who have a
greater though perhaps more naive view of the importance of the earth as
the centre of the universe it was and is easier to make such
"associative" or "imitative" connections than in the apparently random
chaos of the universe know to moderns.
>
>
>>I accept the association with cinnamon but don't really understand it.
>
>
> Then it's pretty much a valueless association.
Well i wouldn't do a money spell without it.
>
>
>>Obviously with Mars as War we get blood and red and the iron age
>>weapons, but the number 5?
>
>
> A list of correspondences has about as much value as the several pages
> of meanings you can find for each tarot card. Associations are
> personal and/or cultural and are thus more or less meaningless to
> others. I would recommend going over the list of correspondences and
> finding those which convey meaning and value as appropriate to you,
> and ignoring all others.
I find my 777 and its ilk to be helpful in an inspirational sense. But
as any rigid structure impossible to sustain. This argument is fully
articulated by Crowley in his virtual apologia for the book 777 which
he calls an "introductory essay".
Were i not at the very least, delusionaly, aware of another sort of
"structure" to the universe these types of lists might be indicative of,
they would hold no interest for me at all. But i do think they are a
poor reflection of a type of structure that runs through all creation,
from the smallest to the largest and that probly in some sort of n -
dimensional Fractel loop.
Sort of like the Simpsons episode that opens with Homer watching t.v.
and the camera backs up further and further, showing first the planet
earth, then the solar system, then the galaxy, then the local cluster,
super cluster, entire universe, some transcendental morphology where an
infinite number of infinite universes become the cellular composite of
Homer watching t.v. "you are every thing and everything is you...."
--
JL
Brett
<jpst...@isp.com> muttered intensely:
>>>I accept the association with cinnamon but don't really understand it.
>>
>>
>> Then it's pretty much a valueless association.
>
>Well i wouldn't do a money spell without it.
Then let's explore why you believe this, yet do not understand the
association. Not calling on you to defend yourself, just hoping to
understand why you arrive at this point.
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:29:23 CST, Joseph Littleshoes
> <jpst...@isp.com> muttered intensely:
>
>
>>>>I accept the association with cinnamon but don't really understand it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then it's pretty much a valueless association.
>>
>>Well i wouldn't do a money spell without it.
>
>
> Then let's explore why you believe this, yet do not understand the
> association. Not calling on you to defend yourself, just hoping to
> understand why you arrive at this point.
Ipsi dixit.
--
JL
Brett
<jpst...@isp.com> muttered intensely:
>Brett wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:29:23 CST, Joseph Littleshoes
>> <jpst...@isp.com> muttered intensely:
>>
>>
>>>>>I accept the association with cinnamon but don't really understand it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then it's pretty much a valueless association.
>>>
>>>Well i wouldn't do a money spell without it.
>>
>>
>> Then let's explore why you believe this, yet do not understand the
>> association. Not calling on you to defend yourself, just hoping to
>> understand why you arrive at this point.
>
>Ipsi dixit.
I guess I'd have a hard time using a correspondence that I did not
understand, based solely on someone elses idea or word. It would seem
counter-productive to the entire idea of Correspondences.
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:12:02 CST, Joseph Littleshoes
> <jpst...@isp.com> muttered intensely:
>
>
>>Brett wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:29:23 CST, Joseph Littleshoes
>>><jpst...@isp.com> muttered intensely:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>I accept the association with cinnamon but don't really understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then it's pretty much a valueless association.
>>>>
>>>>Well i wouldn't do a money spell without it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then let's explore why you believe this, yet do not understand the
>>>association. Not calling on you to defend yourself, just hoping to
>>>understand why you arrive at this point.
>>
>>Ipsi dixit.
>
>
> I guess I'd have a hard time using a correspondence that I did not
> understand, based solely on someone elses idea or word. It would seem
> counter-productive to the entire idea of Correspondences.
As a starting point it was all i had. And, hard as it may be to
believe, or as it may seem, i am less gullible know than i was then. My
respect or rather "awe" of some of the "masters" has changed
considerably since my first discovery of them.
I no longer take the various "correspondences" as being as authoritative
as i once did.
But even then how does one define a "glorious" aroma or one that is
"soft" or "voluptuous" much less "virginal" or "evil" or "generous."
I find various aromas easy enough to classify as "complex" or "simple"
but much beyond that...a rose, is a rose, is a rose. The shape
(circular) of its bloom and to a lesser extent its colour help make an
attribution to deity rather easy. Even the freshest rose seems
"antique' in its aroma to me, almost the aroma of ancientness.
Lineal figure or geometric shapes are a bit easier to relate to number,
various animals, stones, metals seem to me to have certain obvious
magical affinities, gold = sun, silver = moon, for example. The
"magical weapons" column of 777 always seemed a bit odd to me unless
it's title is changed to "magical instruments" or "tools."
And of when it comes to spirits, genie, angles, archangels,
intelligence's etc. i don't even bother to try to classify them.
And at this point in my life all such correspondences are more of an
intellectual exercise i am fond of, but which have less and less
application in my life as i move more and more toward internal,
meditational workings rather than external objects in space oriented
workings.
I am more likely to use the correspondences artistically, for interior
decoration, or other forms of adornment or artistic creativity than i am
in e or invocation.
And even my meditational use of number and related colour and form seems
to differ greatly from the traditional sources. There is less clear cut
distinction and more of a blending from one thing to another, more like
a spectrum than a ridged hierarchy.
--
JL