Tarot Card attributions to Liber AL vel Legis
-
Alrah, 93,
I'm trying to follow your proofs here, and I can't see them. To quote one example, you cite Valour, Indolence, Science and Wealth for the first verse of Chapter 2. How do these cards relate to Nu, Hadit, or hiding? I don't see any connection between them and the words.
There's the usual approach we could take of subjectively stretching the meaning of each Tarot card, and for me, that's legit in reading a spread of my own. But I've read this schema you've presented three or four times, and I can't see the objective pattern you claim to discern.
And in what way does Liber Al replace the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Sure, the G.D used parts of that text, supposedly painting it on their pillars, but I fail to see any other connection between the two things. The two writings are different in structure, aim and content. Your points about the old and new Aeons are sound, but they're hardly new info.
I think you went a little off the deep end here.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
Alrah, 93,
I am Popeless, and plan to remain so. Do remember that part of Copernicus' problem was that he was predicting circular planetary orbits. It took Kepler's genius to fix the problem and make a lastingly convincing case based on ellipses. Just because an idea is new, doesn't mean it should be embraced by all and sundry. His book De Revolutionibus was intelligently critiqued by the leading scholarly minds of his time, and some saw the logical flaws.
Was Crowley writing "ecstatic lit" according to whatever ideas were going through his head at the time? Yes, if we completely discount the well-established Hermetic Qabalistic notions upon which all his ideas were soundly based. I don't, and I think his work, deriving from what was probably Mathers' contribution of the attributions of the astrological decanates to the pip cards, is all the more sound for that. The system Crowley inherited was well interrelated with other Qabalistic concepts.
What you have here might become interesting if you were able to expand it into a similarly integrated and multi-dimensional structure, as came out of the G.D. For now, it's intriguing and clever, but very tenuous.
I'll check the blog on the Book of the Dead, and reply on that later.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
Alrah, 93,
Are you aware that the Book of the Dead/Coming Forth by Day is not from the general period we acknowledge as Osirian but from almost a thousand years before that, in the Aeon of Isis? The Pyramid texts from which it ultimately derives come from a millennium prior to the formulation of the Book with which we are (sort of, some of us) familiar today.
I read the blog piece, and I still don't get why you chose that ancient text. Why not Revelations, say, or the life-disparaging Gospel of Mark?
93 93/93,
Edward
-
Alrah, 93,
The stops - and the pips - as thou wilt. Enjoy your lightning, and I'll stick to my "Judaistic schema." Though please note that I didn't dismiss the entire thing. Qabalah interconnects on all levels, and I simply can't see that for now, what you offer connects over anything more than a very narrow spectrum.
Copernicus published as he was dying, and never faced torture or the Holy Inquisition. Smart beggar,yes?
I do, BTW, recommend we leave our mothers out of this entirely.
93 93/93,
Edward -
Not withstanding your argument with EM, I am trying to understand your system. It seems to be two-fold: the sequence it self, and the interpretation of that sequence.
Let's just get the sequence clear first: I don't see it. (Perhaps I'm slow in picking it up.) But could you explain it a little more? Once I understand that, then I will try the second part.
-
@Alrah said
"
@nderabloodredsky said
"Not withstanding your argument with EM, I am trying to understand your system. It seems to be two-fold: the sequence it self, and the interpretation of that sequence.Let's just get the sequence clear first: I don't see it. (Perhaps I'm slow in picking it up.) But could you explain it a little more? Once I understand that, then I will try the second part."
What is it that you do not see? 1,2,3,4,5 is a sequence. It can't be simpler."
If it is a "sequence," then I assume there is some sort of LAW to it. But I'm not seeing it. Why is verse 1 to be 1,10,10,10 and verse 5 to be 3,8,10,10? There was no LAW between the sets that calls itself a predictable sequence.
1 10 10 10
2 9 10 10
2 10 9 10
2 10 10 9
3 8 10 10
3 9 9 10
3 9 10 9
3 10 8 10
3 10 9 9
3 10 10 8
4 7 10 10just to get started there....
-
@Alrah said
"You're going about this the wrong way. Say you've worked out that there are 220 combinations of the 4 cards that add to 31. How would you calculate reasonly quickly (without a computer program) what all the 220 combinations are in sequence? It might have taken a good mathematician maybe an hour in Crowley's day using what scientists used to call 'the rubber book' aka 'the bible'. (Hint - review factorial math)."
look Arlah, math is not my strongest point, and I'm not going to review factorial math right at this moment. Could you just explain it in basic terms?
Thanks.
-
Yes, just give the formula - or as they said in school, show your work.
no need for obscurum per obscurius methods
-
@Alrah said
"It's not mine either! Quite frankly - working out how this all worked made my head hurt, and I had a mathematician to consult too. I can give you the formula, but unless you are willing to put the work into understanding it, then there's no point, is there? The formula would be the most basic terms I can put it in. Sorry."
Fair enough!
What's the formula?
-
I still don't understand what part of this formula is not arbitrary. I've applied "pi" to much of the Book of the Law, and to good effect, as far as my own whimsies go. But I wouldn't admit that these "proofs" are anything more than expermintal, inconclusive. But a proof is something universal, and reflects the harmonies inherent in Gematria. Anything else is of purely subjective validity. This isn't to denigrate your work, but you're still far from elucidating the Book of the Law.
Also, if anything, a proof should be edifying.
-
Okay, I see the correlation. You've fit two pieces together, but what about the rest of the puzzle?
It seems rather useless to attempt "proofs" of the Book of the Law unless one's got the whole kit and caboodle.