Philosophy on the Tree of Life
-
Would philosophy correspond better with Hod or Netzach?
-
Actually, you can take the six areas of philosophy & attribute them to Ruach in its entirity...here is one example:
Yesod = Metaphysics
Hod = Epistemology
Netzach = Philosophy of Religion
Tiphareth = Ethics(especially Virtue Ethics)
Geburah = Logic
Chesed = Political Philosophy616
-
I didn't realize the subject was so far-reaching! The dilemma came in when I saw that philosophy, a very mental subject, was implied in the name of 4=7 - I take it that this is on account of philosophy being the love of wisdom, connoting a seperation from it & a devotion towards it, making the title particularly relative to the Philosophus...I suppose art might be a better attribution to 4=7.
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"...I suppose art might be a better attribution to 4=7."
We could do the same with the arts that we did with philosophy:
Yesod = Dance
Hod = Poetry
Netzach = Painting
Tiphareth = Music
Geburah = Sculpting/Glass & Metal Work
Chesed = Architecture/Masonry616
-
Very Nice!
By 'art' I was specifically referring to painting, but your attribution of painting to Netzach has cleared that up.
Thanks KRVB!
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"The dilemma came in when I saw that philosophy, a very mental subject, was implied in the name of 4=7 - I take it that this is on account of philosophy being the love of wisdom, connoting a seperation from it & a devotion towards it, making the title particularly relative to the Philosophus."
Yes. That's exactly it.
In fact, as Netzach is the lesser and outer bhakti yoga, Chesed is the greater; and, were I to relate philosophy to a single sephirah, it would be Chesed.
But you are right that the intellectual aspects, by which the study is best known, have a stronger characteristic of Hod than of Netzach. The whole thing has changed very much since Plato coined the term.
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"Would philosophy correspond better with Hod or Netzach?"
The first distinction that has to be made, IMO, is between "systematic" philosophy - largely British-originated, Hume, Russell, Searle etc - and "continental" philosophy (Foucault, Derrida et al).
The former would be logical-left-brain and Hod (at least according to the way I think of Sephirothic correspondences) and the latter more intuitive, sociological, artistic, right-brained, Netsach.
I'm not sure where the Americans stand on this; wouldn't be surprised if they have followers of both streams. I have recently read Nussbaum (who tries her best to "logicize" emotion) and Rorty, who comes from a more sociological basis.
I was reminded of this by a question of Nudoro - how do you tell a "large" (x 1000) Hebrew number-signifying-letter from a "normal" one? Derrida's answer would be "differance" [sic] Nothing makes sense unless you can compare it with something else. That's, perhaps, one of the beauties of the Tree.
OP
-
@ATUM said
"
We could do the same with the arts that we did with philosophy:Yesod = Dance
Hod = Poetry
Netzach = Painting
Tiphareth = Music
Geburah = Sculpting/Glass & Metal Work
Chesed = Architecture/Masonry
"Hey what about martial arts?
-
@bryan said
"Hey what about martial arts?"
Geburah of course
- & in some cases(such as Tai Chi) I suppose you might pair it with dancing at Yesod...616
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Red Eagle of Death said
"The dilemma came in when I saw that philosophy, a very mental subject, was implied in the name of 4=7 - I take it that this is on account of philosophy being the love of wisdom, connoting a seperation from it & a devotion towards it, making the title particularly relative to the Philosophus."Yes. That's exactly it.
In fact, as Netzach is the lesser and outer bhakti yoga, Chesed is the greater; and, were I to relate philosophy to a single sephirah, it would be Chesed.
But you are right that the intellectual aspects, by which the study is best known, have a stronger characteristic of Hod than of Netzach. The whole thing has changed very much since Plato coined the term."
What is the difference between the philosophy associated with Chesed/Hod and false knowledge of Daath?
-
@h2h said
"What is the difference between the philosophy associated with Chesed/Hod and false knowledge of Daath?"
Excellent question. I don't know if I can do it justice in a short answer, but I'll try.
First - I don't know that I would characterize Da'ath as false knowledge. It's knowledge, and knowledge itself is 'false' in an absolute sense (that is, it isn't capable of containing or expressing Reality in a big-scheme-Reality way). Compare my favorite definition of "dirt" as being "matter in the wrong place." There may be nothing wrong with the matter itself.
The first thing to get about Da'ath is that it doesn't exist. There is no such thing called Da'ath, not even in the relative abstract way in which we might call a Sephirah a "thing." Da'ath is a brilliant Qabalistic construction - a pseudo-thing intended to express the nature of pseudo-things.
Part of the real splendor and mystery of Da'ath is that it doesn't exist and is used to represent something that doesn't exist - specifically, knowledge (which is a relationship, not a thing).OK, bring those ideas together and we start to get an answer... Where Da'ath "is" (speaking very metaphorically), knowledge is dirt - it's "matter in the wrong place." The key thing about Da'ath, in this instance, is that it is the upper bound of the definition of the Ruach. It is the juncture point where superconsciousness naturally intercedes. Standing in the immediate presence of the Holy of Holies, in the face of superconsciousness, intellect has no place and the relationship-matrix called "knowledge" is entirely out of place. Therefore it is "dirt" and Da'ath is "wrong" - without that being a judgment.
But this is only true because of "where" it stands. At any lower level, Reason is quite a useful and appropriate tool. Hod is the intellectual faculty within the Ruach, and Chesed is the same idea appropriately 'located' to be immediately receptive to Neshamah - in fact, the difference between 7=4 and 8=3 isn't in element (they're both Water, with an envisioned infinite water-themed gulf between them) but, rather, whether the same experience is experienced through Ruach or Neshamah. The fact that the 7=4 is the traditional representative of the Third Order to the rest of the Order is a pragmatic expression of the deeper truth, that Chesed is the Ruach faculty which stands in the immediate presence of, and receptive to, and giving expression to the 'instructions' of Neshamah. Their first translation to the Ruach seems more... philosophical.
There is another difference worth mentioning. It is the scope of intellectual resources employed. Hod is intellect in the way we normally know it from the personality level. Chesed abstracts it - is able to deal in broader categories or 'clusters' (galaxies instead of individual stars). But Da'ath is all knowledge simultaneously. Our most expanded human intellectual experiences within the realm of 'normal' are still founded on selective perception and selective attention. In Da'ath, that limitation no longer exists. All data is simultaneously in immediate access. The consequence is either madness... or transcendence. That is, one either continues to relate to the units of reason as differentiated units (still thinking of them as stars), or transcends the differentiation and relates to them holistically (space in its entirety). In that choice, there is either overwhelm and madness (continuing unit-awareness of an infinite number of units, with the consequent loss of ability to maintain the structure, and its eventual collapse) or trans-abysmal (supernal) consciousness.
This is all off the cuff, tossed off in a few minutes, so excuse the awkwardnesses here and there...
-
Thanks for the reply.
I like to think in visual images. One of the descriptions of Daath is that it is all ten sephiroths united in one. If so, it seems we would not even know the Tree of Life existed without Daath. Note AC’s proof of Daath in Little Essays Toward Truth:
All knowledge may be expressed in the form S = P.
But if so, the idea P is really implicit in S; thus we have learnt nothing.
And, of course, if not so, the statement is simply false.Any discerning reader will solve what “S” and “P” stand for and the relation between them. To resolve the non existence of Daath vs. the necessity for it, I arrived at the following image: the Tree of Life is invisible but its reflection can be seen in a mirror.
Daath would be that reflection.
@Jim Eshelman said
"There is another difference worth mentioning. It is the scope of intellectual resources employed. Hod is intellect in the way we normally know it from the personality level. Chesed abstracts it - is able to deal in broader categories or 'clusters' (galaxies instead of individual stars). But Da'ath is all knowledge simultaneously. Our most expanded human intellectual experiences within the realm of 'normal' are still founded on selective perception and selective attention. In Da'ath, that limitation no longer exists. All data is simultaneously in immediate access. The consequence is either madness... or transcendence. That is, one either continues to relate to the units of reason as differentiated units (still thinking of them as stars), or transcends the differentiation and relates to them holistically (space in its entirety). In that choice, there is either overwhelm and madness (continuing unit-awareness of an infinite number of units, with the consequent loss of ability to maintain the structure, and its eventual collapse) or trans-abysmal (supernal) consciousness.."
Thanks for sharing the above. My question would be: why the necessity for madness? By "necessity" I refer to the big picture explanation - humanity's Fall? the irreconciliable divorce between knowledge and Being?
Also, have there been stories of people successfully crossing the Abyss prior to AC?
-
@h2h said
"One of the descriptions of Daath is that it is all ten sephiroths united in one. If so, it seems we would not even know the Tree of Life existed without Daath."
This bears no connection to any idea I have about either Da'ath or the Tree. - This doesn't mean that it'ds not useful. You may have angle on this I'm not seeing. But, for my sake, you might as well ahve said that one of the descriptions of skyscrapers is ruptured tomato.
"Thanks for sharing the above. My question would be: why the necessity for madness? By "necessity" I refer to the big picture explanation - humanity's Fall? the irreconciliable divorce between knowledge and Being?"
'The Fall' is a suitable explanation. A clearer way to say the same thing is that, despite all the good use and value and even necessity of reason, it can't contain or express the whole of reality.
Now, most of the time, people don't need to grasp the whole of reality. But if you do, then reason will fail - become completely unsuitable for the task - at some stage of the game.
"Also, have there been stories of people successfully crossing the Abyss prior to AC?"
Yes, of course. An easy one to mention is Buddha. Also, St. John of the Cross probably completed the journey, and in any case deeply understood the sojourn. If Lao-Tse actually wrote the Tao Teh Ching, then he clearly had completed the crossing.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"This bears no connection to any idea I have about either Da'ath or the Tree. - This doesn't mean that it's not useful. You may have angle on this I'm not seeing. But, for my sake, you might as well have said that one of the descriptions of skyscrapers is ruptured tomato."
Hmmmmm I would say giant exploding orange, but I digress…
I took that description of Daath from here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daat_(Kabbala
Another source describes Daath as the image of all the sephiroths unified in one place. It’s one of the few descriptions of Daath that made any sense. After all, why construct a pseudo-thing to express the nature of other pseudo-things? That doesn't make any sense - unless, of course, the doubling of inauthenticity upon inauthenticity is to disclose the inherent unreality of *all phenomenal appearance *(rather than reason, language and other aspects of the Ruach typically listed under Daath), which would echo your comments about “transcending the differentiation and relating to them holistically (space in its entirety)”. Science tells us that time is perceived and measured through changes in matter but we know these limitations start to fade through awakening and undoing of conditioning. There is an “objectivity” to this awakening spatial awareness that might explain why Saturn is located at Binah. Nagarjuna’s tetralemma uses logic to arrive at the same understanding. Or one can look at those who took the path of negative theology (Molinos comes to mind) - the intellect uses negation as a method for transcendence in both examples. If you see the Buddha on the road, kill it.My point is that a negative form of knowledge is still preserved in the crossing and does not necessarily result in madness.
From the above, I would guess the old Kabbalists constructed Daath along similar lines, to warn against false idols when re-ascending the Tree, to remind that map is not territory, that knowledge is a child of wisdom and understanding and to reverse this relation results in usurpation of authority, sterility and barrenness etc.
I am trying to reconstruct here the thinking of these old Kabbalists. Namely, why would they construct an unreal thing that expresses all the sephiroths and place it on the Tree - specifically at the Abyss? The only logic I can discern here is that Daath was constructed and placed at the Abyss to create awareness of the distinction between appearance vs essence, knowledge vs. attainment and the correct order of reality (inside/outside, parent/child etc). Hence AC’s description of the Abyss as the gap between phenomenal reality and ideal reality wherein the ideal/essential nature of things is found at Binah. This is all consistent with Platonic philosophy.
What doesn’t make sense is to 1) assert the unreal nature of Daath and 2) to see no relation between Daath and the rest of the Tree. Like I noted in another thread, to assert the “unreal” nature of Daath is a form of knowledge - and surely this was the kind of awareness or knowledge the old Kabbalists must have wanted to safeguard when constructing Daath and placing at the Abyss. There seems to be some kind of awareness here that every truth over time becomes a dead husk or shell and therefore one must continually seek the underlying essence of things rather than fixating on the outer aspect. If so, this would suggest that without Daath to balance out the rest of the Tree and serve as a reminder, there is a danger of the Tree of Life reverting into the Qliphotic Tree. It also raises interesting points on why Saturn is associated with Binah.
Please feel free to disagree with the above.
Edit: fixed link
-
@h2h said
"After all, why construct a pseudo-thing to express the nature of other pseudo-things?"
If the actual nature of a term carries para-messages about the nature of what the term signifies, it gives more opportunity to correctly understand it.
"There is an “objectivity” to this awakening spatial awareness that might explain why Saturn is located at Binah."
Yes, that's a very useful clue. A lot of people (especially people who are prejudiced to think that fictional reality is unreal) tend to think Supernal consciousness as getting farther and farther from 'the real world.' Actually, it takes one deeper into it, one of its symptoms being the capacity to see things for what they are.
"From the above, I would guess the old Kabbalists constructed Daath along similar lines, to warn against false idols when re-ascending the Tree"
That actually wouldn't seem in keeping with the mindset of 'the old Kabbalists,' who tended to be fiercely doctrinal.
"why would they construct an unreal thing that expresses all the sephiroths"
I see you holding fast to that definition of Da'ath. In time, I suspect you will see that it's a boondoggle that someone threw into a Wikipedia article.
-
Ok, suggestion duly noted. Note I am not attached to any definition of Death - just trying to make sense of it. Since the A.A. system is based on the Tree of Life and a correct understanding of Daath is important (taking into account how traditional Kabbalists might regard the topic vs. Crowley’s description in The Vision and the Voice) maybe someone would be kind enough at some point to list all the primary sources for Daath.
With regard to knowledge vs. crossing of the abyss, Crowley contradicts my earlier comment on Platonic idealism. He compares the Tao to Reason, the Way and Greek concept of being, TO ON:
As for TO ON, which superficially might seem the best translation of Tao as described in the text, it is the most misleading of the three. For TO ON possesses an extensive connotation implying a whole system of Platonic concepts than which nothing can be more alien to the essential quality of the Tao. Tao is neither being nor not-being in any sense which Europe could understand. It is neither existence nor a condition or form of existence. At the same time, TO MH ON gives no idea of Tao. Tao is altogether alien to all that class of thought. From its connection with 'that principle which necessarily underlies the fact that events occur' one might suppose that the 'Becoming' of Heraclitus might assist us to describe the Tao. But the Tao is not a principle at all of that kind. To understand it requires an altogether different state of mind to any with which European thinkers in general are familiar. It is necessary to pursue unflinchingly the path of spiritual development on the lines indicated by the Sufis, the Hindus and the Buddhists; {7} and having reached the Trance called Nerodha-Sammapati, in which are destroyed all forms soever of consciousness, there appears in that abyss of annihilation the germ of an entirely new type of idea, whose principal characteristic is this: that the entire concatention of one's previous experiences and conceptions could not have happened at all, save by virtue of this indescribable necessity.
I am only too painfully aware that the above exposition is faulty in every respect. In particular it presupposes in the reader considerable familiarity with the substance, thus practically begging the question. It must also prove almost wholly unintelligible to the average reader, him in fact whom I especially aim to interest. For his sake I will try to elucidate the matter by an analogy. Consider electricity. It would be absurd to say that electricity is any of the phenomena by which we know it. We take refuge in the petitio principii of saying that electricity is that form of energy which is the principle cause of such and such phenomena. Suppose now that we eliminate this idea as evidently illogical. What remains? We must not hastily answer, 'Nothing {8} remains.' There is some thing inherent in the nature of consciousness, reason, perception, sensation, and of the universe of which they inform us, which is responsible for the fact that we observe these phenomena and not others; that we reflect upon them as we do, and not otherwise. But even deeper than this, part of the reality of the inscrutable energy which determines the form of our experience, consists in determining that experience should take place at all. It should be clear that this has nothing to do with any of the Platonic conceptions of the nature of things.
- Introduction to The Tao Teh King (emphasis mine)