The Qabalah in the Macrocosm??
-
In the classical geocentric or "Ptolemaic" model of the universe, the earth is a stationary body in the center, and all those lights you see in the sky (or used to, before the days of artificial lighting) are on moving spheres that surround the earth. The closest sphere is that of the moon. Everything inside that sphere is imperfect, corruptible matter; everything beyond it is perfect and eternal.
The next farthest sphere is that of Mercury, then Venus, and so on to Saturn. Beyond that, all of the stars are on a single sphere, the Celestial Sphere, or sphere of fixed stars. Beyond that is the First Mover, i.e., God.
Since antiquity, gnostic and initiatory schools have understood this model symbolically as a map of the soul's path to freedom. We begin on the impure earth and climb the mystic stairs or ladder of lights or alchemical mountain or tree of life through the various spheres to the top.
The qabalistic Tree of Life is a version of this, and the sephiroth map, from Malkuth to Yesod on to Kether (I almost said, on beyond zebra) to the earth and the spheres in the Ptolemaic scheme. Chokmah, then, corresponds to the sphere of the fixed stars (and not just the zodiac -- the Hebrew word translated as "zodiac" can also mean "constellations" in general). You sometimes see Kether associated with the "First Swirlings". This is what happens when "Prime Mover" (a term Aristotle used for God) is translated from Greek to Latin to Hebrew and finally into English.
In a diagram in the Book of Thoth, Crowley associated Uranus with Daath, Neptune with Chokmah, and Pluto with Kether. This strikes me as too clever, and it breaks the original scheme. If you're going to add the recently-discovered planets, Uranus should go with Chokmah and Neptune with Kether, IMO. (The name "Uranus" means "the heavens", so is harmonious with the idea of the sphere of fixed stars.) This leaves no place for Pluto, but perhaps that can be taken as a token that Pluto is not a planet after all
But your idea of associating Kether with the galactic center is even better. That way, the outermost, all-encompassing sphere in the Ptolemaic model becomes the innermost center in the modern view. It's like saying "The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs."
-
Thanks for that concise summary and endorsement, at least someone can relate to where I'm coming from. I think this Blackhole/ Galactic Center rendition of Kether has many parallels, and may be a link between Qabalah and Theoretical physics.
-
"...& my spangles are purple and green.51.Purple beyond purple: it is the light higher than eyesight." Liber CCXX II:50/51
Here "purple beyond purple" always struck me as "Ultraviolet Light" relatively recently it has been shown that the "Galactic center/black hole/Singularity" emits Ultraviolet , X- and Gamma-radiation, all "Higher than eyesight". So this may be a corroboration by "The Book of the Law" of the above theory if "Hadit" is associated with "Kether" ; and if so, then this may be some proof of the preterhuman aspect of this Book.
Does anyone have any other interpretations of this verse? -
@Scapegoa said
""...& my spangles are purple and green.51.Purple beyond purple: it is the light higher than eyesight." Liber CCXX II:50/51
Here "purple beyond purple" always struck me as "Ultraviolet Light" relatively recently it has been shown that the "Galactic center/black hole/Singularity" emits Ultraviolet , X- and Gamma-radiation, all "Higher than eyesight". So this may be a corroboration by "The Book of the Law" of the above theory if "Hadit" is associated with "Kether" ; and if so, then this may be some proof of the preterhuman aspect of this Book.
Does anyone have any other interpretations of this verse?"Did you bother to read AC's commentary who speaks about this verse? "Purple -- the ultra-violet (v.51), the most positive of the colours. Green -- the most negative of the colours, half-way in the spectrum." I.e. both positive and negative, i.e. transcending dualities being Infinite.
..." He is “Blue ... and gold in the light of” Nuit; that is to say, the star-strewn sky which is her image reveals him. It is clear that he, having no form, save by virtue of her, cannot be known or seen. To seek him is merely to seek out one of the things that may be; that is, of course, as Nuit herself. His nature only appears by the “red gleam” in his eyes. His fiery light which desires to unite with her in all her forms may been seen in those organs by which he himself perceives. For so soon as we think of the eyes of Hadit, which express his Will and his wit, we ourselves begin to partake of our kinship with him, and we think at once of the fiery lust of the spirit to consume all things.
In the image of him as a snake, we thing of his outer form as “spangles”. Wherever he comes into contact with anything to which he can react, there is a blaze of light and this light is purple and green. Aiwass explains that by purple is meant the light beyond the violet of the spectrum, and perhaps also that which is beyond the red. For the word is clearly meant to express the active extremes of that order of double motion which we call life, in which green is the centre of the portion which we are able to perceive. Green is the most passive of the colours. We connect it with the nature of Venus. It suggests love, peace, and the growth of plants and trees; whereas the light which we connect with Jupiter is violet and makes us think of the highest godhead reaching beyond our vision to pure motion of the spirit. Red is the colour of Mars—of the lowest form of energy, tending to heat rather than light, and reaching beyond light to some form of the action of spirit which seems to tend towards the death of energy itself. The purple of Hadit combines these extremes. He transforms the one to the other at will. In Him they are one. This is the final secret of Physics. Guided by the Book of the Law, men of science will soon learn that the lowest depth is one with the highest height. Energy degrades till it reaches a point when it becomes once more the root of the highest form. I have shewn elsewhere the mode of this change. The main point is (in this place) to point out that the Book of the Law asserts that energy neither begins nor ends, but moves through a cycle of change."IAO131
-
Black holes do not exist. Just another cultural myth.
-
This video does not disprove that blackholes exist, at best it argues that modern physics simply does not understand them completely, the arguments presented find fault with current theory, but gives no explanation for the phenomena attributed to blackholes, nor what exists at the center of our galaxy and others. "It is easier to tear down than to build"; Einstein's theories are evidently incomplete, as he himself was aware, and hence his quest for a "unified field theory" which he never achieved.
-
@Aum418 said
"
Did you bother to read AC's commentary who speaks about this verse? "Purple -- the ultra-violet (v.51), the most positive of the colours. Green -- the most negative of the colours, half-way in the spectrum." I.e. both positive and negative, i.e. transcending dualities being Infinite."No, i haven't read that yet, still i don't get how green is the most negative of colours, being like you say, half-way in the spectrum? like you mention later "Red" or "Infrared" would seem the obvious opposite, unless you mean exclusively the most passive??
"..." He is “Blue ... and gold in the light of” Nuit; that is to say, the star-strewn sky which is her image reveals him. It is clear that he, having no form, save by virtue of her, cannot be known or seen."
This would seem to apply to the theoretical "Singularity",having no form save by virtue of her ?
"To seek him is merely to seek out one of the things that may be; that is, of course, as Nuit herself. His nature only appears by the “red gleam” in his eyes. His fiery light which desires to unite with her in all her forms may been seen in those organs by which he himself perceives. For so soon as we think of the eyes of Hadit, which express his Will and his wit, we ourselves begin to partake of our kinship with him, and we think at once of the fiery lust of the spirit to consume all things. "
Once again theoretically "the lust of the Singularity" also is to "consume all things" by its extreme gravitational attraction, and literally consuming all things beyond the event horizon", i mean this association is possible is it not?
-
I think the priests of astrophysics bedazzle their flock with science fiction. Black holes only exist theoretically. They're imaginary, the result of mathematical games which captured the imagination of the masses.
Personally I don't see the use of mapping fashionable science of the day onto an ancient symbol system. Except maybe for marketing purposes. Or perhaps just for the exercise.
-
@JNV33 said
"I think the priests of astrophysics bedazzle their flock with science fiction. Black holes only exist theoretically. They're imaginary, the result of mathematical games which captured the imagination of the masses.
"This is only true to the extent it is true in all fields of learning, the rule however cannot be applied unilaterally in every situation.
What proof do you have for this? Theoretical doesn't necessarily mean imaginary, at best you might say the evidence is inconclusive. You cannot disprove the theory of blackholes. -
@JNV33 said
"I think the priests of astrophysics bedazzle their flock with science fiction. Black holes only exist theoretically. They're imaginary, the result of mathematical games which captured the imagination of the masses.
Personally I don't see the use of mapping fashionable science of the day onto an ancient symbol system. Except maybe for marketing purposes. Or perhaps just for the exercise."
All systems have been periodically updated in light of new discoveries. One objective of Qabalah is a consolidation of ideas.
I would like to know what you think exist at the center of the galaxy, or do you deny the galaxy has a center?? -
"Theoretical doesn't necessarily mean imaginary, at best you might say the evidence is inconclusive. "
Theoretical does mean imaginary, especially in this case since we're talking about theoretical EXISTENCE. Regarding so-called evidence for black holes, when one considers how easy it is to misinterpret everyday things that are familiar and close up, you have to seriously question the scraps of evidence said to support this theory. And with any new unexpected observation, scientists say "Wow, we never predicted black holes would have that property!" Then they incorporate this new evidence into black hole theory. Problem: the prime evidence that black holes exist is this same "theory" that they keep fudging to match their observations.
"You cannot disprove the theory of blackholes."
'Black holes' haven't been shown to exist in the first place, so there's no need to prove they don't.
-
@Scapegoa said
"I would like to know what you think exist at the center of the galaxy, or do you deny the galaxy has a center??"
I don't know what's at the center of the galaxy. Of course the galaxy has a center. Any portion of space can be said to have a center.
-
@JNV33 said
"
@Scapegoa said
"I would like to know what you think exist at the center of the galaxy, or do you deny the galaxy has a center??"I don't know what's at the center of the galaxy. Of course the galaxy has a center. Any portion of space can be said to have a center."
This is not just some abstract center, but very specifically, through observation the rest of the galaxy has been shown to "orbit" the center, implying some kind of extreme gravitational pull towards the center, that point alone suffices for my argument, whether you choose to call it black hole/ Singularity or whatever.
-
93,
Not only do black holes exist but they are good metaphors.
Does that settle it?
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"Not only do black holes exist but they are good metaphors.
"All kinds of religious superstition can be good metaphor while not literally existing. Black holes are said to exist (based on questionable manipulation of admittedly incomplete equations), but nobody has ever discovered an event horizon or a singularity. Something with a strong gravitational pull does not a black hole make.
I find the level of belief in black holes to be interesting, as I suspect most astrophysicists would agree that their existence is unproven.
-
@JNV33 said
"
@Aum418 said
"Not only do black holes exist but they are good metaphors.
"All kinds of religious superstition can be good metaphor while not literally existing. "
So can many (pehaps all) kinds of science. Does anyone know what "literally [think about that word] exists"? Or are the letters, words and symbols of metaphorical language all we have?
It's just occurred to me that in the immediately post-Liber-Legis era the most commonly understood significance of "purple and green" would have been as the signature colours of the "Suffragette" movement (Women's Social and Political Union, founded October 1903). "Every man and every woman is a star"?
OP
-
@Oliver P said
"
@JNV33 said
"
All kinds of religious superstition can be good metaphor while not literally existing. "So can many (pehaps all) kinds of science. Does anyone know what "literally [think about that word] exists"? Or are the letters, words and symbols of metaphorical language all we have?
"Interesting point. A good book along similar lines is "Magic, Power, Language, Symbol: A Magician's Exploration of Linguistics" by Patrick Dunn. Still, there is a difference between the existence of a concept and the existence of a physical object.
-
@JNV33 said
"
Interesting point. A good book along similar lines is "Magic, Power, Language, Symbol: A Magician's Exploration of Linguistics" by Patrick Dunn."
Thanks for that reference; I will certainly try to find the book.
"Still, there is a difference between the existence of a concept and the existence of a physical object."
The Truth is Out There, eh? (No, Reality is [possibly] out there. The Truth is entirely In Here *).
How do you propose securely tying the existence of a mental and linguistic concept to a "physical object"?
Something like "I know this object exists because you and a number of other people say it exists and when you do, you use language that gives rise to a concept in my mind that is similar to the concept that is in my mind when I actually look at the object I presume to exist. Therefore I assume that when you look at the object an exactly similar concept is in your mind...."
There are so many holes in that that the concept in my mind at the moment is a slice of gruyere cheese (which does not, BTW, exist; I have a piece of gruyere cheese in my fridge and right now I imagine I am slicing it; but the slice does not really exist; though in the next two minutes I can make it exist....)
I'll see what Patrick Dunn has to say.
BTW. when you say "the existence of a concept" and "the existence of a physical object", are you even using the word "existence" in the same sense?
As a famous man once said; it depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
OP
-
OP, I note that you are arguing with yourself in that post, setting up a strawman. Seems to me you could invoke the same argument to support the existence of unicorns.
I'm basically a pragmatist; I am capable of making distinctions.