Has qaballa been overtaken by science?

Dulcimer

Ventrue said:
I have read a few essays on string theory, and one in particular that related string theory to kaballist views. There were more than a few similarities. Thats why this grabs me so much I think, because it just MAKES SENSE to me. It's said every person is given a measure of faith, and since i began studying the kaballah I just couldn't have faith because it didn't make sense to me...<end rant>

Ven
Sounds like a legitimate view to me. Also sounds like you've found your faith. ;)
I'd be interested if you could mention where I could find those essays.
 

isthmus nekoi

jmd said:
To view, for example, the psychological dimensions of humanity as reflected in the various Sefirot is quite legitimate, though to 'reduce' the Tree of Life as solely a psychological 'model' is not. Similarly, the psycho-physiological-physical sciences may be viewed as reflected in the tree, but to 'reduce' the tree to it being 'simply' a model for the physical universe does not, to my way of thinking, do justice to its more essential characteristics.

If the tree of life is not simply a "model", or a "sign", what then, is the relationship between the TOL and experience? Sorry, I realize how... impossible it could be to answer such a question. But I am curious as to other's understandings.

To me, the TOL seems different than the semiotic "sign" and closer to CG Jung's idea of the "symbol"... The symbol is something that is alive, almost an entity in and of itself, and yet, more than that. To reduce it to, as jmd says, a psychological model for example, is to pin the living butterfly into a box and kill it.

Signs can also become detached from referent (floating signifier) so they seem somehow freer than the symbol. Signs can become like fetishes in which they can disavow and displace experience ("more real than real"). And yet despite this, signs seem more rigid than symbols simply because of the very same detachment from experience. They are not "alive" in the way symbols are. However UNLIKE the symbol, the TOL can claim a sort of permanence (? Objectivity? Not quite the right words...) that symbols and even signs cannot possess due to its mathematical aspects.

Philip said:
To study the kabbalah in a purely intellectual manner is like reading a book to ride a bike and expecting to actually go somewhere. If you want to go, then you have to get on the bike and actually ride it. This is action. Sure, there is study involved, but it does not replace action.

I know you haven't suggested this, but I wanted to add that action does not replace study. There are plenty of artists out there channeling *something major* but if you ask them what it is they're doing, they haven't a clue what they're doing. They're acting out of instinct which is great. They may not even want to know (I recall film maker David Lynch considering psychoanalysis but rejecting it on the fear that understanding his work would kill his ability to create more films!). So to act instinctually while being cognizant the entire time of the instinct is another kettle of fish, I think. A bidirectional approach.

Actually, now that I've written this, the binaries of representation-experience, study-action, mind-body etc are starting to blur again on me and feel artificial and I'm not sure how legitimate my questions and statements are. I make no claims as to the legitimacy of my understanding, save that this is how I see the TOL at present.
 

venicebard

AmounrA said:
Is deep study of the kabaalaa truely rewarding, has any one used it to real effect ? Or is it now defunct being over taken by the fields of science?
Quite the opposite. Science itself is distracted by fads and dogmas today that mean, for example, that while the data of astronomy is mushrooming, theoretical cosmology and astrophysics has been going backwards for the most part, looking for the 90% of mass they can’t find instead of taking the empirical approach and crediting electromagnetic pinch between plasma filaments, for example, for galaxy-formation. There are no black holes, as these are just a stopgap to cover up lack of evidence (way too little mass observed for the theory to be valid).

Particle physics, when you get past the sensationalism of the interpretations, presents a picture quite in keeping with Qabbalah and Hermetic science: four elementary particle-types that even quark theory would have to explain, since the structure doesn’t go away simply from calling two of them by one name(hadrons). Fire-photon, air-lepton, water-meson (pi-meson being the quantum of ‘pionic’ or strong nuclear force), and earth-baryon. They even array themselves cyclically (in that order) when graphed by spin and average charge.

But the main thing to keep in mind is that if we accept the premise of Qabbalah, then all units that exist seek the type of Adam Qadmon, the teleological Form at the head of things. This is how Qabbalah breaks through the problem of Plato’s supposed eternal Forms for every fly-by-night species that exists: all seek the form of Adam Qadmon, and it is just that units are at varying distances from that goal. So much for science ‘overtaking’ Qabbalah: fat chance. (It might catch up with Qabbalah in a few centuries, but even this I doubt.)

And as for pictures of Trees versus the Trees themselves, the ten stages from up (first) through out (fourth) through down (seventh) to in (tenth) on each of the four wheels of Ezekiel’s vision are real for every conscious self that exists: forward or out is towards other and back or in towards self, the latter being the tenth station of the round (beginning in aries-the-head or up)—the Shekhinah (presence of the divine).
 

Dulcimer

isthmus nekoi said:
If the tree of life is not simply a "model", or a "sign", what then, is the relationship between the TOL and experience? Sorry, I realize how... impossible it could be to answer such a question. But I am curious as to other's understandings.
OK, here's mine.
The ToL is where you can apply your experience and see how you can relate your experience to the Universe. In that way the Tree is not merely a model, sign or symbol but is a creation of the human mind attempting to understand the universe from the point of view of Mind itself.

Let's be clear about this; as far as definitions go, symbols arise unbeckoned into the conscious mind. They are formed by the Unconscious to convey meaning to consciousness when the conscious mind is unable to adequately explain an experience. That is why a symbol can contain a numinous energy or 'charge'. A sign, on the other hand, is something created by the conscious mind to convey information to another conscious mind. It contains no 'charge'.
Thus, whereas the sight of a mountain can fill the heart with yearning because it connects with the unconscious numinous quality of the "mountain" as symbol, the zodiac is made of signs which provoke no more than an intellectual appreciation. We have a different feeling when we look at the Atu III symbol The Empress, say, than when we look at the Hebrew sign for Daleth. In fact getting a 'feeling' is a pretty good indicator - but not infallible since that numinous energy can disappear with time, overuse or neglect of symbol, or simply forgetting or being unaware as to what the symbol originally meant - as to whether we are looking at a symbol or sign.
We unconsciously project symbols but we consciously design signs.

The Tree of Life is neither symbol nor sign however. It is a diagram. My dictionary defines a diagram as, "A plan, sketch, drawing, or outline designed to demonstrate or explain how something works or to clarify the relationship between the parts of a whole."

What symbols and signs we place on the diagram or how we choose to interpret it is another matter which has nothing to do with interpreting the diagram, any more than changing the names of the stations on the London Underground effects our interpretation of the map - though not to say it wouldn't get rather confusing.
Also, it should be constantly kept in mind that the Tree of Life is no more than a representation of the universe and is no more a true picture of it than the map of the Undergound is a true pictures of the actual tunneling under London. They are both useful tools for getting your bearings but they mustn't be confused with the real thing.
 

Dulcimer

venicebard said:
There are no black holes, as these are just a stopgap to cover up lack of evidence (way too little mass observed for the theory to be valid).
???????????????????????????
 

isthmus nekoi

Dulcimer said:
We unconsciously project symbols but we consciously design signs.

That's an excellent differentiation! Now if you don't mind my asking, my question would be, since you ascribe the origins of symbols to the unconscious and the origins of signs to consciousness, where would you ascribe the origins of the TOL diagram?

I totally agree that the TOL is neither sign nor symbol, largely I think due to the nature of the alphabet/numbers embedded in its model. I honestly can't think of any discourse that deals with this unique mode of representation.

p.s. sorry if this is getting really ot from the original post, pls feel free to split the thread.........
 

Dulcimer

isthmus nekoi said:
...since you ascribe the origins of symbols to the unconscious and the origins of signs to consciousness, where would you ascribe the origins of the TOL diagram?
The Tree we work with at present is very much an invention based in part on generalised pictures found in Alchemical and Hermetic works down the ages and on Rosicrucian tradition from the 16th and 17th centuries. Today we have a quite brilliant design [imo] which was constructed in the 19th Century in an effort to bring a scientific approach to certain occult (mostly ceremonial) practices.
The oldest drawings we have, such as they are, show less inclination toward the 'pidgeon-holing' and catogorizing ToL we use now and more toward getting a broad grasp of God's relationship to 'His' creation.
So, the original model may have been symbolic, but gradually became - in the hands of Western mechanical minded mystics - a diagramatic tool for attaching correspondences and comparative symbols and signs for magick working.

As to whether the Kabbalah has been overtaken by science, I would have to say - yes it has. I don't mean by that that science has proven the Kabbalah to be outdated or wrong or anachronistic. What I mean is, a major flaw in Kabbalah is that Kabbalah's brush paints a broad stroke. Science is all about detail. You can, as Venisbard and countless others, including myself, have done, and place scientific theories, principles, objects, particles, and what-have-you into Kabbalistc groups. But we do so AFTER science has produced the goods; gathering together all sub-atomic particles into four elemental groups is fun and philosophicaly smug, but it is science not Kabbalism that discovered them. Kabbalah cannot predict the existence of those particles nor how they will behave. Scientific methodolgy moved away from Magickal philosophising for this very reason.
Nor can it define or predict events in empirical Laws that can be used in practical applications. Kabbalistic thought could niether have produced the light-emitting diode nor discovered E=MC2.
What Kabbalah can do is provide a mystical and philosophical structure with which we can see relationships and equivalences to aid us on our spiritual journeys. And let us not forget that it is still the Magick worker's system par excellence. In all these things science is barren and inert and Kabbalah will never be overtaken.:)


isthmus nekoi said:
p.s. sorry if this is getting really ot from the original post, pls feel free to split the thread
Not for me to say. But I would think that asking questions about the ToL as whether, given it's origins, it is still relevent today is still within the thread's subject. So long as we don't get into the history of the ToL or its variations I think we're ok. A moderator will have the last word I guess.
 

venicebard

Dulcimer said:
???????????????????????????
How articulate. Covering up for lack of evidence, are we? (Forgive the sarcasm: it's meant in a kidding, not mean-spirited way.)

Seriously, what is called plasma cosmology is a much more empirically sound view, however lacking in grants and officialness it may still be. The observed shapes of galaxies have all been created in plasma laboratories, and the equations are scalable (to the very large). It is just that the gravitational cosmologists were told that electromagnetic effects are masked over long distances and, not being specialists, are not moved by advances in theory using plasmas: the stellar heavens are an essentially electrical phenomenon, with magnetic pinch accounting for all known forms of galaxy. Given this, black holes become just so much gratuitous sensationalism, not to mention the fact that the laws of physics break down in them, showing their theoretical foundation to have been unsound in the first place. You certainly don't have to take my word for it, but please don't accept what the scientific establishment says as infallible, since it is far from that: one must learn from the mavericks—in this case the pioneer was Hannes Alfvén—else all is just rote. [An account of galaxy-formation can be found in Eric J. Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened.]

The electrical nature of the plasma ‘circuitry’ of the heavens corresponds to the primacy of fire or spirit in Hermetic science, which is a subset of Qabbalah. For the order of elements coming towards earth’s crust from either direction in nature is fire-air-water-earth (radiant-airy-fluid-solid), hence radiant governs both the very large (stellar heavens) and very small (the energy in all things).

Cheers (and think about it).
 

Dulcimer

venicebard said:
How articulate.
Why thank you! :)
venicebard said:
Covering up for lack of evidence, are we? (Forgive the sarcasm: it's meant in a kidding, not mean-spirited way.)
Actually it was the sound of my jaw hitting the floor :(
venisbard said:
[QUOTE-venisbard]]...black holes become just so much gratuitous sensationalism, not to mention the fact that the laws of physics break down in them, showing their theoretical foundation to have been unsound in the first place.
The unsound theoretical foundation you mention is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity! The creation of a singularity as result of a massive gravitational collapse is entirely in keeping with physics, mathematics, and cosmology. Though not with Plasma Cosmology Theory (PCT). Its own 'plasmoid' (have I got it right?) theory is an interesting alternative, but it doesn't negate black-hole theory just because, as a theory, it can.

PCT is a fascinating idea that certainly challenges the so-called Big Bang model. In many instances the theory raises some interesting alternatives - though it falls flat on its face when it comes to the Hubble relationship and the predicted masses of galaxies. I will continue to keep an eye on PCT with great interest, but I'm still on the side of the standard model while the weight of predictive, mathematical, observable, testable, and experimental evidence is in its favour (have no fear, being a fully paid up member of the Fortean Society I am always open to "the mavericks.".)


However, that is beside the point. Only when the Kabbalah, Hermetic or otherwise, can predict or make observably verifiable Laws can it compete with science. Even the well known Hermetic saying "as above, so below" is no longer as true as it was in this age of Relativity vs Quantum mechanics. Although, rather like the now outmoded Newton and Euclid, a case can be made for it in the short term. The Kabbalistic scientific world is shrinking.

This is fun! :D
 

venicebard

Dulcimer said:
The unsound theoretical foundation you mention is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity!
Am I supposed to swoon? The work of Petr Beckmann (Einstein Plus Two, Golem Press) has made both special and general relativity obsolete, showing all that is needed to derive ‘time dilation’, mass-energy equivalence, advance of perihelion of Mercury, bending of light rays in a gravitational field, and so on is to take force as delayed (by speed of light relative to locally dominant field), rather than instantaneous (‘action at a distance’) and speeds relative to fields, not observers. But yes, general relativity is unsound: an affine connection, utilizing derivatives some of which are Euclidean, is applied to so-called non-Euclidean spaces, in which such derivatives are undefined. (Check it out.)
The creation of a singularity as result of a massive gravitational collapse is entirely in keeping with physics, mathematics, and cosmology.
...which only goes to show how unsound all three are today: do you really believe that a point, which has no extent, can contain a conglomeration of matter? A point can contain nothing. However, it is quite true that motions in the cosmos must be point-like, since otherwise they would be ‘smeared out’ over a volume (or length) and thus consist of ‘an infinite number’ of locations where that motion is occurring, which is of course silly. But it takes more than one location of motion (which you would call quarks but I call partons) to even develop much mass, so the idea of great conglomerations of mass existing at a single location is just nonsense... but believe it if you wish. But what I was originally referring to was the idea spouted by the black-hole enthusiasts themselves that the laws of physics break down at the event horizon or some such (I really don't follow such shananigans closely).
PCT is a fascinating idea that certainly challenges the so-called Big Bang model. In many instances the theory raises some interesting alternatives - though it falls flat on its face when it comes to the Hubble relationship and the predicted masses of galaxies.
I would tend to agree on the Hubble thing, but all current models fail on the Hubble redshift. Certainly the assumption (and that’s all it is) that greater redshift equals greater distance AND greater radial velocity is arbitrary. Out of all possible theoretical models of redshift that the one that is the most sensational—an ‘expanding’ universe—is chosen is no surprise, but that does not make it sound science.

I almost let that ‘predicted masses’ comment pass: this argument of yours is entirely vacuous, as the only people who need those ‘predicted masses’ are the gravity-worshipers, who can only find 10% of the mass they need to make their equations work as it is! Gravity is entirely negligible in the plasma model and therefore it fails at no such thing. You need to rethink this one.
I will continue to keep an eye on PCT with great interest...
Good...
...but I'm still on the side of the standard model while the weight of predictive, mathematical, observable, testable, and experimental evidence is in its favour...
What I don’t understand is where you get the idea it is. I hope you’re not still clinging to the original prediction Einstein made about light curving in a gravitational field: the simpler explanation for this is Beckmann’s, where you don’t need a whole new kind of ‘space-time’. But the eclipse observation in 1919 was one of the chief reasons for physics having made the misstep of Einsteinian ‘relativity’ replacing Galilean (that and failure to understand the concept of a central frame).
However, that is beside the point. Only when the Kabbalah, Hermetic or otherwise, can predict or make observably verifiable Laws can it compete with science. Even the well known Hermetic saying "as above, so below" is no longer as true as it was in this age of Relativity vs Quantum mechanics. Although, rather like the now outmoded Newton and Euclid, a case can be made for it in the short term. The Kabbalistic scientific world is shrinking.
Well, Qabbalah in the form I understand it, using bardic numeration and restoring the original order of the twelve simples about the round, does actually ‘predict’ some things modern physics has gotten wrong. Two examples:

First, the four particle types confirming alchemy’s four elemental types are prefigured by it even though modern physics thinks it knows better than nature and can reduce these to three by the quark model (defining baryons and mesons as both hadrons as if that ‘cures’ them of being fermions and bosons, respectively, that is, completely different in behavior). Up (aries) is 8, oxygen and the principle of combustion: the photon (fire). In towards self (capricorn) is 19, potassium, +1 valence electron, thus standing for the lepton (air). Down (libra) is 21, scandium, heaviest nucleus of the 22 (counting LeMat, space) and thus standing for the pi-meson (water), the principle (before quark theory muddied the waters) of nuclear cohesion. And out towards nature (cancer) is 17, chlorine, -1 valence electron and thus standing for the remaining type, the proton or baryon (earth), which is also ‘-1 valence electron’. Moreover, these are placed so as to indicate average or mean spin by height off the ground libra and average or mean charge by relation to the central vertical axis (neutral charge): photon is 'spin one', on top, lepton and baryon 'spin one-half', and meson 'spin zero', photon uncharged, meson coming in all three charges and thus averaging zero, with lepton and baryon electric charge being characterized by (averaging out to, another words) oppositely charged electron and proton.

Second, whereas we treat the electron as negative and thus indicate current as flowing in the direction opposite that of the actual electrons, Qabbalah as you can see got it right, by calling the electron or lepton +1. In fact, the whole power of Qabbalah over nature (as expressed through the Great Name) resides in the polarity of +1 numerically (10, neon) versus -1 valence (9, fluorine), which within the Egg (the zodiac, man) are expressed through surrogates 17-chlorine—a -1 BOTH numerically and valence-wise—and 19-potassium—a +1 BOTH numerically and valence-wise—which control the fluids within cells—as vav and yod—while 11-sodium is straight out from chlorine on the same horizontal (at leo on the Cauldron or half-circle twice the Egg’s radius within which it rests, like egg in nest) and controls the fluids outside the cell (Egg).
This is fun! :D
Yes it is: wish I had more time. Cheerio!