Latin Qabalah Simplex
-
This is all fine, as long as it's understood that the Latin Qabalah Simplex is an established system. It's not a matter of making it up the way you want.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"the Latin Qabalah Simplex is an established system"
And, just to be clear, what is that system? -
@gmugmble said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"the Latin Qabalah Simplex is an established system"
And, just to be clear, what is that system?"I'm at work and don't have the tables with me. I'll try to remember to post it later. (Isn't it around here somewhere?) - See my first post on this thread for a general explanation.
Ah, I just found an online location that quotes me on the letter values. I'd have to check the tables to see (I've never memorized the table for Latin, despite using it for over 30 years), but here's how I was quoted. (In any case, it's the 22 letters of the Latin alphabet given the values 1 through 22.)
A=1
B=2
C=3
D=4
E=5
F=6
G=7
H=8
I=9 (includes J, which is a consonantal I)
L=10
M=11
N=12
O=13
P=14
Q=15
R=16
S=17
T=18
V=19 (V is Latin 'u,' and the U, V, W are all incorporated here)
X=20
Y=21
Z=22 -
@gmugmble said
"And, just to be clear, what is that system?"
A=1, B=2, C=K=3, D=4, E=5, F=6, G=7, H=8, I=J=9, L=10, M=11, N=12, O=13, P=14, Q=15, R=16, S=17, T=18, U=V=W=19, X=20, Y=21, Z=22.
See also lashtal thread here. (And please disregard my initial erroneous claim in that thread about the system arising with either Jim or Soror Meral... later it was clarified that the system was described in PFC's True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order.)
Steve
-
Hi,
Jim, the 22-fold [Italian] Cabala Simplex was not the only historical Latin cypher, so your argument that it is the only "established system" is without merit. Furthermore it is creative suicide to blindly follow established systems without proper scrutiny of their veracity.
I am not "making it up the way I want", I was trying to find the most magickal way it is, as I believe there is only One major Alphabet Order for every language (and from it an infinite number of codes spring).
Finally, the below table is sourced from David Hulse's Latin chapter in his "The Western Mysteries". In it, he says "it was not until the 16th century that the entire Latin Alphabet was given number value. In Germany and Italy six basic 'Cabalas' for Latin developed".
So just because some people in the 1500's tried to find the correct Latin Alphabet Order/code doesn't preclude me from questioning their success in the 21st century. I fancy going back to an early Greek-based Latin Order/code, before it was historically thought about being numbered. I am not completely alone on this, John Opsopaus arrives at something similar:
www.cs.utk.edu/~Mclennan/BA/JO-Alpha.html
The 7 Historic Latin Cyphers (With 2 Reconstructions by 4774)
This table lists the Latin Grammatometric Orders that have had some historic use. It appears among these that Italian Cabala Simplex was the most popular. I do not accept any of these as correct, for I disagree with the Alphabet Orders they base themselves upon. I. Italian Cabala Simplex II. Cabala Ordinis (German) [Metric Italian Cabala Simplex] III. [4774’s reconstructed Serial Cabala Ordinis (Italian)] IV. Cabala Ordinis (Italian) V. German Cabala Simplex VI. [4774’s reconstructed Metric German Cabala Simplex] VII. German Cabala Triangular VIII. German Cabala Quadrangular IX. German Cabala Pentagonal I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX.A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
B 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 5
C 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 9 12
D 4 4 4 4 4 4 10 16 22
E 5 5 5 5 5 5 15 25 35
F 6 6 6 6 6 6 21 36 51
G 7 7 7 7 7 7 28 49 70
H 8 8 8 8 8 8 36 64 92
I, J 9 9 9 9 9 9 45 81 117
K (3) (3) 10 10 10 10 55 100 145
L 10 10 11 20 11 20 66 121 176
M 11 20 12 30 12 30 78 144 210
N 12 30 13 40 13 40 91 169 247
O 13 40 14 50 14 50 105 196 287
P 14 50 15 60 15 60 120 225 330
Q 15 60 16 70 16 70 136 256 376
R 16 70 17 80 17 80 153 289 425
S 17 80 18 90 18 90 171 324 477
T 18 90 19 100 19 100 190 361 532
U, V 19 100 20 200 20 200 210 400 590
W ---- ---- ---- ---- 21 300 231 441 651
X 20 200 21 300 22 400 253 484 715
Y 21 300 22 400 23 500 276 529 782
Z 22 400 23 500 24 600 300 576 852 -
@Wizardiaoan said
"Jim, the 22-fold [Italian] Cabala Simplex was not the only historical Latin cypher, so your argument that it is the only "established system" is without merit."
It is, however, the system used throughout the esoteric Western Mystery system, and the foundation of (at least) large blocks of encoded alchemical and other Qabalistic communication from core ancient sources.
"[Furthermore it is creative suicide to blindly follow established systems without proper scrutiny of their veracity."
Well, I'm not really interested in the "creative" here. The practical question is, with which system system did the key alchemical, Qabalistic, and other Hermetic European writers encode their doctrines?
I'm willing to back off to the extent of saying that this is what the Temple of Thelema and its predecessors received and use, and the whole of our work pertaining to Latin-language Qabalah is based on it - and someone outside of that can do whatever they want. But I will continue to speak up on this point just exactly as much as if someone began proposing rearranging the numerical valuation of the Hebew or Greek alphabets (which, yes, I know, are also indigenous numeral systems on their own unlike the Latin).
"I am not "making it up the way I want", I was trying to find the most magical way it is, as I believe there is only One major Alphabet Order for every language (and from it an infinite number of codes spring)."
I somewhat agree with you, in that we regard Hebrew as the baseline against which all other Qabalistic work is based and the final language and symbol-system into which results are translated. However, there are other languages that have their own indigenous systems. In our practical usage, this means Greek and Latin in particular.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" I'd have to check the tables to see (I've never memorized the table for Latin, despite using it for over 30 years),"
Lol, you go towards proving my point Jim. It was this very insanity of number-letter correspondence that made me first question the validity of the Italian Cabala Simplex order. It is practically very obtuse to work with, as one can never recall the middle correspondences if familiar with the traditional Greek and Hebrew codes. It is at root counter-intuitive.
This is because through Hebrew, Greek, up to the common English Alphabet Order, there are some letters which do not change place value, namely these:
11 K
12 L
13 M
14 NIn the link I give above, John Opsopaus writes that "the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman alphabets derive form a common source, the North Semitic alphabet of 1700 BCE." I think the common Italian Cabala Simplex order people latch onto today was originally some rather uncarefully thought out, shallow, or over eager gematria work that unquestioningly keeps gaining popularity simply because it is historically in existence lol.
K,L,M,N is always 11, 12, 13, 14, and was as such in the original North Semitic Alphabet from which early Latin derives, yet the creators of the Italian Cabala Simplex chose to abandon these core correspondences, I think in error.
Finally, I claim to have arrived at the order that I like best which I have given and revealed. I realize the issue is complex but important for unlocking alchemy and such, which is why I have spent some time in its consideration.
-
Did you know... that "Animo" which is Italian for Will equals 52 in their own "ABC" Cipher? and that "Amore" which is Italian for Love equals also 52?
Didn't the Romans, which came up with the Alphabet that the English one was based on speak Italian? Wasn't the Aeon of Osiris (Animo=52/Amore=52) promulgated through the Roman Empire/Papacy? Think on this and then visit my thread. It's time for the New Qabbala to do away with the old.
-
Heru52, 93,
You clearly have an unformed system here. It's also clear you are not very familiar with gematria.
If you want to spend a few years developing an actual <b>system</b> from this, that's great. But right now, you just have a froth of arbitrary ideas. Almost everyone who's into occultism goes through this phase, then one day quietly buries it away in a box marked "Embarrassing Things I Used to be Into."
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Edward Mason said
"Heru52, 93,
You clearly have an unformed system here. It's also clear you are not very familiar with gematria.
If you want to spend a few years developing an actual <b>system</b> from this, that's great. But right now, you just have a froth of arbitrary ideas. Almost everyone who's into occultism goes through this phase, then one day quietly buries it away in a box marked "Embarrassing Things I Used to be Into."
93 93/93,
EM"
These ideas are anything but arbitrary. I have been on the pursuit of this knowledge for about 3 years now. How could you call the results of a work 3 years in progress simply arbitrary? That's not reasonable at all. The results I have obtained so far from my workings are very plausible and were not the result of some accident. I have no need for criticism from one who lacks necessary information on the topic like you. Read the post thread again, carefully, and then make a solid opinion rather than just dismissing it as simply arbitrary. I have no need to be embarrassed for anything I do, and neither should you, regardless of the fact of it being arbitrary or not. Why be embarrassed? Did you do it out of Pure Will, or was the act committed by some force out of your reasoning logic? If it wasn't out of Pure Will, then if I were you I'd be worrying about bigger problems than these such as why you would do things that weren't out of Pure Will that would lead you to a feeling of embarrassment. Find your True Will first, and then reply.
-
93,
The embarassment arises later on, when we realize our wonderful insights ... aren't.
It's an aspect of my True Will, as I understand it, to point out such things to people.
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
The embarassment arises later on, when we realize our wonderful insights ... aren't.
It's an aspect of my True Will, as I understand it, to point out such things to people.
93 93/93,
EM"
I don't know about you, but I find the method of Trial & Error anything but embarrassing, I actually consider it to be something clever.
I still think I'm on the right path regardless.