Thelemic Cube of Space?

@Metzareph said
"Has there been an assumption that the Northeast angle is the Star instead of the Emperor? This is the corner of Tzaddi, so going with the BotL, will that then put the Star there and the Emperor on the South/Above corner?"
No. NE is Aries (that's the basic, stable datum) and therefore Tzaddi. (And the flip for SouthAbove.)

@Jim Eshelman said
"No. NE is Aries (that's the basic, stable datum) and therefore Tzaddi. (And the flip for SouthAbove.)"
Oh, right, I meant that the Northeast is traditionally Heh and not Tzaddi. In any case, after the change the Emperor goes there... I just got mixed up with the flip.
Thanks! 
Sorry for asking now, and this may just be a general Cube of Space question... but I'm trying to figure out where the currents that move on the angles come from? I mean why is that Aries current moves from above to below and Taurus moves from below to above, Capricorn from north to south... etc.
Thanks!
~Juan 
@Metzareph said
"I'm trying to figure out where the currents that move on the angles come from? I mean why is that Aries current moves from above to below and Taurus moves from below to above, Capricorn from north to south... etc."
...according to whom? (Asked because there are different representations on this.)

Well, i have a version of the Sepher Yetzirah with a detailed elaboration on tarot by Aryeh Kaplan, also it is mentioned on "the Cube of Space, container of creation" by Kevin Townley. However, I ran into anther book called "New Dimensions for the Cube of Space: The Path of Initiation Revealed by the Tarot upon the Qabalistic Cube" that the currents flow in a different way, so I'm trying to figure out the thinking behind it.

Case gave a list of the direction these flow in one of his advanced Tarot lessons; but I'm not aware of any place where he gave a rationale. It always seemed to me that he had worked these out logically, received the list inwardly, or some combination of the two  but, again, I don't think he ever said where they came from.


Kevin Townley's book is firmly in the Paul Case tradition and uses Case's directions of flow which he made up as far as I can tell as I have never seen them prior to Case's publication. Hulse's book leverages the interest created by Case in the subject but ignores his directions of flow and many other associations completely so cannot be considered as based on Case's Work. Some find Hulse's book an entertaining read and perhaps it is but either I am too dense to appreciate his contribution or it is exactly that, i.e. just an entertaining read with little or no esoteric value...