From thelema93-l-owner@bitsy.hollyfeld.org Sat Feb 17 11:03:04 1996 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA15601 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 11:03:03 -0800 Received: from bitsy.hollyfeld.org ([198.70.189.30]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA16815 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 11:02:56 -0800 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) id NAA02705 for thelema93-l-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 13:51:24 -0500 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (root@nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA02699 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 13:51:11 -0500 Received: from jobe.shell.portal.com (jobe.shell.portal.com [156.151.3.4]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA16213 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 10:48:56 -0800 Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id KAA14796 for thelema93-l@bitsy.hollyfeld.org; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 10:48:55 -0800 Message-Id: <199602171848.KAA14796@jobe.shell.portal.com> Subject: Re: Tzaddi is not the Star To: thelema93-l@bitsy.hollyfeld.org Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 10:48:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <960216133743_424252953@emout04.mail.aol.com> from "PStuart@AOL.COM" at Feb 16, 96 01:37:43 pm From: tyagi@HOUSEOFKAOS.ABYSS.COM (xiwang mu) Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 11369 Sender: owner-thelema93-l@HOLLYFELD.ORG Precedence: bulk reply-to: thelema93-l@bitsy.hollyfeld.org Status: RO kaliyuga 49960217 E6 |From: PStuart@AOL.COM |>>'Cause Aiwass told 'im to. |> |>Really? I've never seen this conversation in print, please elaborate. It wasn't a conversation, really. |Liber AL I:57... Nuit speaking thru Aiwass... Whom was Nuit addressing? 'Her prophet'? Was this Ankh-n-f-khonsu? Crowley? Aiwass? |From: BillS@VAV-NUN.COM (Fr. Also) [mark] |>In the Thoth deck, why is the Emperor still Atu IV and the Star Atu |>XVII, why not change them around? (Ie Star Atu IV and Emperor Atu XVII?) |>Obviously this would make the daleth-he-vau and pe-tzaddi-qoph bits of the |>tree neater The blind of the Emperor/Star switch catches many a tarot-reader, and while there are surely 'elegant' motives and explanations for their displacement, I have never found one which persuaded me of their value. Mostly on the strength of one paradigm/association-schema do I reject it as extreme and only indicative of Crowleyania, the one to which Crowley himself points: Emperor => Ares Star => Aquarius (someone do the honors of filling in the blanks if you are really interested in my argument here; perhaps I am mistaken and it is substanceless or I have misunder- stood some deep concept -- wouldn't be the first time) |I do not buy any of his arguements and have He' and the Emperor at |Chokmah/Tiphareth. What *were* these arguments? I've seen some of the Evil Book quotes in other posts, but I don't claim to understand any type of rational argument in them, nor have I read of Crowley where he offers something logical for its justification. In _The Book of Thoth_ he writes: It appears natural to a mathematician to begin the series of natural numbers with Zero; but it is very disturbing to the non-mathematically trained mind. In the traditional essays and books on the Tarot, the card numbered "0" was supposed to lie between the cards XX and XXI. The secret of the initiated interpretation, which makes the whole meaning of the Trumps liminous, is simply to put this card marked "0" in its natural place, where any mathematician *would* have put it, in front of the number One. But there is still one peculiarity, one disturbance in the natural sequence. This is that the cards VIII and XI have to be counterchanged, in order to preserve the attribution. For the card XI is called "Strength"; on it appears a Lion, and it quite evidently refers to the zodiacal sign Leo, whereas the card VIII is called "Justice", and represents the conventional symbolic figure, throned, with sword and balances, thus obviously referrinng to the zodiiacal sign of Libra, the Balance. _The Book of Thoth_, Aleister Crowley, Samuel Weiser, 1981, p. 9 ________________________________________________________________ To me all of the foregoing makes sense and overshadows the rest of his cogitation, resorting to 'Secret Attributions' and an exhaltation of the Evil Book, before the very resource of logic which Crowley erstwhile lauds in the bulk of his work (esp. in _Moonchild_ if memory serves) with a swathe of propaganda. Why does doing what is common sense to the mathematician (placing 0 at the start) make "the whole meaning of the Tarot luminous", while doing the same wrt the Star Trump requires some sort of 'Secret Attribution'? What was the original justification of placing the Juggler/Fool in the position between XX and XXI (or any of the other spots aside from before I)? What ever happened to 'the method of Science, the aim of Religion'? I don't see the science of this Evil Book, nor the Beast's adherence to a possible misunderstanding which has several strains of persuasive argument against its validity. Listen to him yourself (as I always advise): Frater Perdurabo [that is, the person of Crowley and his initiated consciousness or esoteric fragment known to himself and others as 'Perdurabo']... became entitled to know the Secret Attribution. He constantly studied this and the accompanying explanatory manuscripts. He checked up on all these attributes of the numbers to the forms of nature, and found nothing incongruous. But when... he was writing down [the Evil Book] from the dictation of the messenger of the Secret Chiefs, he seems to have put a mental question, suggested by the words in Chapter I, verse 57: "the law of the Fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God" ("The House of God" is one name of the Tarot Trump numbered XVI) to this effect: "Have I got these attributions right?" For there came an interpolated answer, "All these old letters of my book are aright; but [tzaddi] is not the Star. This is also secret; my prophet shall reveal it to the wise". ... It was many years later that the solution [to the problem of tzaddi's placement and with which to switch] came to him. Tzaddi is "The Emperor"; and therefore the positions of XVII and IV must be counterchanged. This attribution is very satisfactory.... For "The Star" is referred to Aquarius in the Zodiac, and "The Emperor" to Ares. Now ARies and Aquarius are on each side of Pisces, just as Leo and Libra are on each side of Virgo; that is to say, the correction of [the Evil Book] gives a perfect symmetry in the zodiacal attribution, just as if a loop were formed at one end of the ellipse to correspond exactly with the existing loop at the other end. Ibid, pp 9-10. [my comments/translations/etc. - mu] ___________________________________________________ Why does Crowley claim here that 'Tzaddi is "The Emperor"'? His mention of the double-loop seems rather disappointing after his approbation of common sense and 'what comes natural' wrt the 0 and VIII and XI Trumps. |I believe he was eager to find a new trump for tzaddi and came up |with that as a best guess. That's it? Above he at least goes into a nonpersuasive argument wrt the double-loop (illustrated somewhat sloppily in my copy of _The Book of Thoth_ between pages 9 and 10, btw). |He' as the Star is a reflection of his Tet fixation imo :> Please elaborate on this. What is a 'Tet-fixation'? Priapism? :> Why does this explain his tzaddi-attribution? |From: Brendan Everett | I was wondering if some could point me towards the tarot attribution |to the 15 path of He on the Tree of Life. From my research I have noted a |few inconsistencies between The Star or the Emperor being related to it. |Kraig in _Modern Magick_, Regardie in _The Golden Dawn_, and Crowley in |_777_ , say that its is the Emperor, Interesting, if true, that AC was not confident enough in the tzaddi/Emperor pair that he wouldn't have restructured 777 tables to that standard. Perhaps he arrived at the attribution-conclusion posterior to the construction of that work (and thus only changed it in later works like ABBA). I say throw out all the people, set up the attributions of the tarot in a table (here, in this elist) and think for yourself logically about it. See what conforms to 'elegance' and to 'logic' for you. Perhaps we'll all learn something. |yet Crowley... in the Big Weiser edition of _Magick-Book 4_, from an |"updated" table of the ones in 777 says it is the Star .... He may have had an egotistical motive. Then again, there is this tradition within the Tarot of not publishing 'perfect instruments of magical power', such that mages would be sure to twist a thing or two out of proportion in order to make effectless the magic of those who did not understand the majesty and beauty of the completed system. It is what I mean when I say 'intentional blind'. |From: Mark Nuttall |>>In the Thoth deck, why is the Emperor still Atu IV and the Star Atu XVII ? [quotes from the Evil Book stricken, you centres of pestilence] |>A better question is why did he switch them. Hard to know the motivations of the Beast. It could have been his obsession (at first rejectionist and then defensiveness) of the Book of Evil Sayings, plus a desire to have 'uncovered a deep mystery'. It could have been an intentional hurdle for people who have trouble thinking logically and for themselves. It could have been a jab in the direction of the orthodox tarotsters. I suggest that his real reasons for the switch and for justifying them in his double-loop theory is inserted into the text quoted above and has irrational overtones: [the tzaddi-Emperor association and Star/Emperor switch] ...is, to clear thought, the most convincing evidence possible that the [Evil Book] is a genuine message from the Secret Chiefs. Ibid, p. 10. ____________ I suggest that Crowley may have been skilled at the art of persuasion and charlatanry. He was trying to bolster his personal paradigm of being the Prophet of the Aeon, which uses the Evil Book as a foundation for its spiritual Current, as well as his presumed connection to the entities he refers to as 'Secret Chiefs' (in some of his writings he evidences obvious confusion about what exact connection might be between Aiwaz and these Chiefs, or indeed them and himself. None of these metaphysical speculations do I consider 'resolved' in the sense that there are known truths about them. To withhold doubt and an attitude of skeptical inquiry just based on AC's image/reputation would seem at odds even with the Beast's writings (esp. in _The Book of Lies..._) concerning doubt and its value. Tying the Star-Emperor in as a support for this egotistical cosmology (beautiful though it may be) requires that we have either some motive to accept the Evil Book as a cosmological rather than merely personal revelation (which apparently at the writing of this text Crowley did) or that we are persuaded that the switch is in some sense 'rational', 'natural', and above all 'necessary', especially given what he wrote about other such counterchanges. |...I personally want to fully understand why A.C. did things as he did |before I go making changes. How can you ever be sure you've 'fully understood' so as to go on to make your changes? I'm unsure that relying on any individual other than oneself is beneficial to one's association-schema and encourage all to start from the presumption that a mage is in bulk a fraud and confidence huckster (even the ACman) before taking what they say at face value. Even hucksters can be profound writers. Do what the Beast and Buddha says and figure it out for yourself. In some measure promoting ridiculous associations will encourage both fanaticism (following blindly the symbolic net of the Master) and sectarianism (as the illuminated reject the popular schema in favor of greater logic and elegance). First I would wish to look at the tarot and see what made sense to me. If I had no opinion, I would review a host of possible attributary associations and the justifications given for how they appear to vary from traditional tools or merely attempt to derive one on my own. From there I would utilize what resonated most with my own mind, which produced a sufficient quantity of satisfaction (in the quoted text this was one of AC's more emphasized criteria: satisfactive power, and I tend to think that this is also the best means of assessing 'effective ritual' in a scientific way). Free love, right now! xiwang mu nagasiva@yronwode.com Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail From: (nagasiva) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.magick.order,alt.tarot,alt.divination,alt.pagan Subject: Tzaddi Star Tarot Date: 11 Apr 1996 03:17:23 -0700 Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 306 Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com Message-ID: <4kim7j$d01@jobe.shell.portal.com> Reply-To: Mark Nuttall NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick.tyagi:7599 alt.magick:71267 alt.magick.order:1145 alt.tarot:6006 alt.divination:7216 alt.pagan:154387 [from personal email; permission received to repost] 93. /me: (re XVII and IV switch) >|...I personally want to fully understand why A.C. did things as he did >|before I go making changes. xiwang mu > How can you ever be sure you've 'fully understood' so as to go onto make > your changes? I can't. I overstated the case. What I was implicitly referring to was the structure of my QBListic 'filing system' which I'm constructing. As a metaprogrammer coming to QBL, the first task has been to install a system which I believe to be essentially sound. Anyone who's doing this knows how it goes - Atu imagery, astrological associations, the shape of the hebrew glyph, a line between points on the body, the personal associations with the glyph's meanings, colour, smell, whatever and whatever. This is a long process and not one I want to muck about with the structure of before the first draft has become second nature and automatic. As we've seen from the various discussions here, the exact correlations between paths and Atus does give a different `spin,' does provide a change of emphasis... and that's going to affect the energetic flavour of the experience that's delivered through the path layout that the individual has spent months/years memorising/installing. I chose to install A.C's layout because I know it to be a layout that worked for him. I think it's in `Short Essays Towards Truth' that he indicates the existence of a dynamic state of `Do what thou wilt' which he felt to be new ground, perhaps even beyond where Guatama got to. Knowing an individual's path layout goes some way towards ``seeing through their eyes'' ... so my above comment really referred to, seeing the universe through the same filter as A.C. and being able to make some kind of informed judgement at a metaprogramming level as to how that layout effects my consciousness. For me this is akin to hatha, where one first learns the forms one's teacher imparts before starting to experiment. Crowley's arrangement has proved a good a place to start as anywhere ... and if one is going to use the Thoth deck, well.... > I'm unsure that relying on any individual other than oneself is beneficial > to one's association-schema In the long run, of course one must rely on oneself. One has to start somewhere, however. Personally, importing a large chunk of magickal mind from someone I consider a master has been a useful way of bootstrapping the system. Admittedly, my first association-schema is not my own, but.. well, in metaprogramming as in computer programming, I'm happy to grab pre-existing code and customise to taste once the basic model is up and running. True, I'm `trusting' A.C. to give me a useful place to start from. This does not give me nightmares. I must admit though, I've not yet found the `double loop' hypothesis particularly compelling. > Tying the Star-Emperor in as a support for this egotistical cosmology > (beautiful though it may be) requires that we have either some motive to > accept the Evil Book as a cosmological rather than merely personal > revelation (which apparently at the writing of this text Crowley did) or > that we are persuaded that the switch is in some sense 'rational', > 'natural', and above all 'necessary', especially given what he wrote about > other such counterchanges. Agreed. Since I'm currently internalising Liber AL much in the same way as QBL, it's desirable that the two be as harmonious as possible... which is basically asserting AL I:57 again. The verse does not encourage me to make vast changes to the basic G:.D:. attribution... though of course, should I begin to suspect that more `current' could be induced to flow through the (my) system by making such changes, they'll be made. I admit that my approach to Liber AL has been similar to that of A.C's path attributions - giving it enough `trust' to allow a wholesale installation before making changes. I find it interesting to switch between the `cosmological' and `personal' interpretations ... but again, until nuit/hadit/ra-hoor-khuit is sufficiently installed that it becomes a normal mode of interpeting experience, and the level of gnosis has deepened considerably I doubt that I'll feel in a position to make informed changes. Really, much of this is about facilitating a shift into states of gnosis. Liber AL and Crowley's map offer a seemingly viable route towards this. (I do other things as well, I'm just talking about one of the ongoing projects.) I expect that shifting the symbols and attributions will change the flavour of the resulting states... but again, my experiences of 2=0 have been fairly few and far between as yet, so time will tell here as well. Having placed metaprogramming (Lilly, Leary, Wilson et al) as a baseline paradigm from which to work, I find there's really no problem in shifting certain beliefs around as and when. The cosmological/personal aspect of AL is one such belief-variable... I can't be asked to require a fully 'necessary' argument about attributions, interpretations or whatever before taking up a set of beliefs... it's more, get something working now and fiddle with it later in the light of experience. > Free love, right now! InDEED. 93 93/93 -- Mark Nuttall, mpn@doc.ic.ac.uk. Thought precedes form. 2=0. ========================================================================== ~From: dpschneider@eagle.wesleyan.edu 93 Mu once again provides some very interesting points. > |From: BillS@VAV-NUN.COM (Fr. Also) > [mark] > |>In the Thoth deck, why is the Emperor still Atu IV and the Star Atu > |>XVII, why not change them around? (Ie Star Atu IV and Emperor Atu XVII?) > |>Obviously this would make the daleth-he-vau and pe-tzaddi-qoph bits of the > |>tree neater > The blind of the Emperor/Star switch catches many a tarot-reader, and while > there are surely 'elegant' motives and explanations for their displacement, > I have never found one which persuaded me of their value. Mostly on the > strength of one paradigm/association-schema do I reject it as extreme and > only indicative of Crowleyania, the one to which Crowley himself points: > Emperor => Ares > Star => Aquarius I agree wholeheartedly. I have never been impressed with arguements for this switch... especially Crowley's. Let's look at the Book of Thoth for a moment. Crowley advocates a "double loop" hypothesis where he switches Lust (Strength) and Adjustment (Justice) on one side of the loop and the Emperor and the Star on the other. He bases this explaination on the zodiacal signs. Lust and Adjustment keep their old zodiacal attributions as well as Hebrew letter attributions, but change places in the deck. Then for some unknown reason, Crowley feels it is a symetrical change to keep the Emperor and the Star in the same place in the deck, keep the zodiacal attributions the same, but just change the Hebrew letters. It is curious that he doesn't even change the zodiacal attributions when he bases his entire argument on a "double loop" in the zodaical signs. Even assuming that this can be explained, we are left with an even bigger problem. Look at a good copy of the original Book of the Law (no not the Bible, the _other_ Book of the Law :>) I believe the new version of Book 4 has a good copy. Look at the place in the manuscript where it is written that "<> is not the star." Look at that symbol. It is clear that Crowley wrote over it with a different writing implement at least two or three times. What was it originally? Who knows, perhaps Crowley thought it was a tzaddi when he heard it, but doesn't the book imply that formation of the letters are just as important as the letters themselves? Some have claimed that the original looks sort of like a final tzaddi, others have stated it looks a bit like an ayin. Either way, even the argument of "divine revalation" seems questionable at this point. > |I do not buy any of his arguements and have He' and the Emperor at > |Chokmah/Tiphareth. If I remember correctly, the light in the actual picture on the tarot card seems to imply the original placement much more then Crowley's changed placement for the path. Not that this means anything, just pointing it out :> > What *were* these arguments? I've seen some of the Evil Book quotes > in other posts, but I don't claim to understand any type of rational > argument in them, nor have I read of Crowley where he offers something > logical for its justification. In _The Book of Thoth_ he writes: > It appears natural to a mathematician to begin the > series of natural numbers with Zero; but it is very > disturbing to the non-mathematically trained mind. > In the traditional essays and books on the Tarot, > the card numbered "0" was supposed to lie between the > cards XX and XXI. The secret of the initiated > interpretation, which makes the whole meaning of > the Trumps liminous, is simply to put this card > marked "0" in its natural place, where any mathematician > *would* have put it, in front of the number One. But > there is still one peculiarity, one disturbance in the > natural sequence. This is that the cards VIII and XI > have to be counterchanged, in order to preserve the > attribution. For the card XI is called "Strength"; > on it appears a Lion, and it quite evidently refers > to the zodiacal sign Leo, whereas the card VIII is > called "Justice", and represents the conventional > symbolic figure, throned, with sword and balances, > thus obviously referrinng to the zodiiacal sign of Libra, > the Balance. > _The Book of Thoth_, Aleister Crowley, Samuel Weiser, 1981, p. 9 > ________________________________________________________________ > > To me all of the foregoing makes sense and overshadows the rest of his > cogitation, resorting to 'Secret Attributions' and an exhaltation > of the Evil Book, before the very resource of logic which Crowley > erstwhile lauds in the bulk of his work (esp. in _Moonchild_ if > memory serves) with a swathe of propaganda. I completely agree. > Why does doing what is common sense to the mathematician (placing > 0 at the start) make "the whole meaning of the Tarot luminous", > while doing the same wrt the Star Trump requires some sort of > 'Secret Attribution'? What was the original justification of > placing the Juggler/Fool in the position between XX and XXI > (or any of the other spots aside from before I)? The idea seems to be that since "Shin" is a symbol for spirit, then the fool should be given the attribution of "shin". I believe Levi was an advocate of this position. > What ever happened to 'the method of Science, the aim of Religion'? > I don't see the science of this Evil Book, nor the Beast's > adherence to a possible misunderstanding which has several > strains of persuasive argument against its validity. Listen > to him yourself (as I always advise): > Frater Perdurabo [that is, the person of Crowley and > his initiated consciousness or esoteric fragment known > to himself and others as 'Perdurabo']... became entitled > to know the Secret Attribution. He constantly studied > this and the accompanying explanatory manuscripts. He > checked up on all these attributes of the numbers to > the forms of nature, and found nothing incongruous. But > when... he was writing down [the Evil Book] from the > dictation of the messenger of the Secret Chiefs, he seems > to have put a mental question, suggested by the words in > Chapter I, verse 57: > "the law of the Fortress, and the great > mystery of the House of God" > ("The House of God" is one name of the Tarot Trump numbered > XVI) to this effect: "Have I got these attributions right?" > For there came an interpolated answer, > "All these old letters of my book are > aright; but [tzaddi] is not the Star. > This is also secret; my prophet shall > reveal it to the wise". > ... It was many years later that the solution [to the > problem of tzaddi's placement and with which to switch] > came to him. Tzaddi is "The Emperor"; and therefore > the positions of XVII and IV must be counterchanged. > This attribution is very satisfactory.... > For "The Star" is referred to Aquarius in the Zodiac, > and "The Emperor" to Ares. Now ARies and Aquarius are > on each side of Pisces, just as Leo and Libra are on each > side of Virgo; that is to say, the correction of [the > Evil Book] gives a perfect symmetry in the zodiacal > attribution, just as if a loop were formed at one end > of the ellipse to correspond exactly with the existing > loop at the other end. > Ibid, pp 9-10. [my comments/translations/etc. - mu] > ___________________________________________________ > Why does Crowley claim here that 'Tzaddi is "The Emperor"'? His > mention of the double-loop seems rather disappointing after his > approbation of common sense and 'what comes natural' wrt the 0 > and VIII and XI Trumps. In Crowley's defense, although he tries to seem very sure of himself when writing this book, his diaries imply that he was not anywhere near as sure in his actual work. There are still examples of Crowley working out Gematria and other ideas with both sets of attributions (for the Emperor and the Star) quite late in his life. He seemed to always question as to whether he was correct. > |From: Brendan Everett > | I was wondering if some could point me towards the tarot attribution > |to the 15 path of He on the Tree of Life. From my research I have noted a > |few inconsistencies between The Star or the Emperor being related to it. > |Kraig in _Modern Magick_, Regardie in _The Golden Dawn_, and Crowley in > |_777_ , say that its is the Emperor, > Interesting, if true, that AC was not confident enough in the tzaddi/Emperor > pair that he wouldn't have restructured 777 tables to that standard. Perhaps > he arrived at the attribution-conclusion posterior to the construction of > that work (and thus only changed it in later works like ABBA). Yes! see above. Personally I believe that all copies of the book of the law should stop using the word "tzaddi" and instead attempt to show the picture. Sometimes I really question as to whether Liber 220 should be considered a Holy Book in the way that Liber 31 is generally considered. There are too many liberties taken in interpretation IMHO. I am glad to see that Thelemites are finally questioning some of Uncle Al's analyses and are feeling comfortable thinking for themselves. > Free love, right now! > xiwang mu > nagasiva@yronwode.com 93 93/93 NOX dpschneider@eagle.wesleyan.edu EOF -- Ensure my response - CC public replies to email (READ ) (emailed replies may be posted) SEEK INFO: (PROTEST: 'indecency')