AL I:1-4
-
93,
Indeed. I'm so used to thinking of the verses as numbered that I must have forgotten that!!:) My thanks for the fast response.
93 93/93
Regards -
93, I find in these verses a complete defining idea of all that is and is not. Complete. Of course, I also find it directed specifically at the manifested. Not just in wording, but in it's numbering: 4.
-
Verse 3 is the individual (Had) point of view: everyone is different. Verse 4 is the universal (Nuit) point of view: everyone is the same.
-
@Shunyata said
"It was dictated as a continuous thought and only numbered after the fact."
But the versification was in the original - just not numbered.
And I do hold that the numbering is fundamental to the architecture of the Book. I've published a lot of work showing that, in the vast majority of the verses, it's quite clear that a rigorous structure of 22 passes through the numbers 1 through 10 (treated as Sephiroth) characterizes the verses.
In the present question, the distinction is between the first Binah verse and the first Chesed verse.
On the question posed: Your "but" seems misplaced, inferring a contrast between the statements. I see them as saying (substantially) the same thing.
-
93,
@Jim Eshelman said
"On the question posed: Your "but" seems misplaced, inferring a contrast between the statements. I see them as saying (substantially) the same thing."
Yeah, you're right, and I was aware of that. This may be my own misconception, but when I see people quote I:3 they seem to imply that we are all single, separate stars. So I added the "but" to emphasize that we are all the same (again, apart from the Ego). Though, it's probably just me that thinks that people think that...
I guess I should have been clearer.
93 93/93
Regards -
Liber AL I:22 Once again four arises.
-
I think in one of his commentaries, AC likens it to infinite number series - something about there being infinitely many natural numbers, but also infinitely many prime numbers (and yet one is great than the other?), and an infinite number of other series of numbers which are equally infinite yet equally distinct. Something like that.
Anyway, I take it that we are here introduced to two metaphors for what we really are - star and number, and we're meant to cross-analogize.
i.e:-
We are like stars in respect of ....
We are like numbers in respect of ....We are like stars in respect of being self-shining, self-generating centres of energy, sharing light in a universe that's ablaze with our glory.
We are like numbers in respect of the fact that each number has an infinite number of potential interactions with other numbers - each number is a "mini-infinity" so to speak. And these interactions are procreative of other numbers, which are themselves mini-infinities - and so on.
-
@seekinghga said
"This may be my own misconception, but when I see people quote I:3 they seem to imply that we are all single, separate stars. So I added the "but" to emphasize that we are all the same (again, apart from the Ego). Though, it's probably just me that thinks that people think that...
"But v. 4 doesn't say we're the same. Quite the opposite. It is saying that each is an entire universe in and of itself. Even mathematically (literally "number") this is true.
It's not that there is no difference between/among us. It's that there is no difference in the scope of our individual infinitiveness.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@seekinghga said
"This may be my own misconception, but when I see people quote I:3 they seem to imply that we are all single, separate stars. So I added the "but" to emphasize that we are all the same (again, apart from the Ego). Though, it's probably just me that thinks that people think that... "But v. 4 doesn't say we're the same. Quite the opposite. It is saying that each is an entire universe in and of itself. Even mathematically (literally "number") this is true.
It's not that there is no difference between/among us. It's that there is no difference in the scope of our individual infinitiveness."
OK Jim.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"But v. 4 doesn't say we're the same. Quite the opposite. It is saying that each is an entire universe in and of itself. Even mathematically (literally "number") this is true.
It's not that there is no difference between/among us. It's that there is no difference in the scope of our individual infinitiveness."
How not? It says that all numbers (read:stars) are infinite. It says, "no difference." That might be all and well for you, but it says that "Every number is infinite; there is no difference.
-
@seekinghga said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"But v. 4 doesn't say we're the same. Quite the opposite. It is saying that each is an entire universe in and of itself. Even mathematically (literally "number") this is true.It's not that there is no difference between/among us. It's that there is no difference in the scope of our individual infinitiveness."
How not? It says that all numbers (read:stars) are infinite."
No. It says that every number is infinite. Each of them, individually, is infinite.
And BTW it's your interpolation that numbers = stars. It is irrelevant that I pretty much would agree with you - I still want to point out that it's your interpretation.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"No. It says that every number is infinite. Each of them, individually, is infinite."
OK, I agree with that. We are all infinite. I am decrying against those who affirm that what they call "I", the Ego, is infinite. I agree with you Mr. Eshelman. Every number, in and as it believes itself, that is not infinite. It is "that which remains." That is eternal.
-
I read it as from the Point of View of Nuit, and that the first 4 verses are about all that can be said from within that point-of-view.
In verse 1, you have the "unveiling of the company of heaven" and in verse 5, the word is repeated, as "unveiling before the Children of men".
It sounds like Nuit, is in some ways, the infinite heaven, and the individual stars - all the "men" and "women" - collectively make up Nuit, and are unveiled as/with Nuit.
Then in verse 5, she calls for help to expound on the idea of that consciousness in more tangible terms.
-
It is important to note first that infinite =/= eternal.
The point that every number is infinite, is that what defines any particular thing, is it's relation to other things.
point (1,2) on a grid for example is a unique location that is only defined by those numbers relative to the "absolute" point (0,0) but the same point is (0,2) relative to the point which is (1,0) "relative to the absolute". That means that each particular point on the grid has a unique relationship to every other point on the grid, and there are infinite ways to describe the same point relative to each one of the infinite quantity other points. Thus a true and complete description of any one point requires the inclusion of every other point and the relation to each one. If any one of the infinite points was to change location relative to the point we are describing, then the definition and properties of that one point change slightly.
That is to say every particular exists as a contemporaneous manifestation of the Total continuum of the General. Or "As above, so bellow" The "ONE THING" of Hermeticism transcends the seeming opposites of the particular perspective and the general continuum. the point can only be defined within the continuum and the continuum can only be defined by it's constituent parts. A foot is 12 inches, and inch is 1/12 foot. the 2nd inch is defined relative to other inches on the foot. In the universe there is nothing beyond Nuit save more Nuit to compare her to, and there is no part of Nuit that is not Hadit to compare him to. Comparing a thing to itself is futile, and so every number is infinite. The only difference left to compare is between Hadit and Nuit. (which this too is only a matter of perspective illusion)
The reason there is "no difference" is because a complete description of any one point includes all other points, and there is no difference between the All and the All, only the perspective focus changes.
-
93,
To continue what I was saying before, FiliusBestia pointed out AL I:22 (thanks):
"Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him by a secret name which I will give him when at last he knoweth me. Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also thus. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."
Think of a time when it was snowing outside. Snow filled the sky and snow covered the ground. All of this snow, when viewed as a whole, is the Body of Nuit. Now, each individual flake is an individual person. An individual flake by itself is meaningless. I mean, it has the capacity to move where it would and do what it is meant to do--infinite potential. It can fulfill its purpose or collide with the other flakes as it will. But by itself it can not fill the sky or cover the ground. It is only when viewing all of the flakes as a whole, as Nuit, that there is any meaning or symmetry to it. Each individual flake of snow is, after all, merely a part of the total of the snowfall. (A person calling himself arun gave me an idea for the snow analogy, I merely expanded on it. Just FWIW.)
@Jim Eshelman said
"
But v. 4 doesn't say we're the same. Quite the opposite. It is saying that each is an entire universe in and of itself. Even mathematically (literally "number") this is true.It's not that there is no difference between/among us. It's that there is no difference in the scope of our individual infinitiveness."
That sounds like your own personal interpretation of that verse. It says, quite plainly, in vv. I:4 & 22, "no difference." We all have infinite potential, we all have that divine heritage, but in the scope of things we are all the same. In 333 years what will be of Jim Eshelman?
93 93/93
NamastePS
Thanks everyone for their replies.