Yygdrasilian's theory

[Yygdrasilian]

Unconquered Sun

Except there is no zero point in the Gregorian calendar.
It goes from 1 BC to AD 1.

...it struck me that the day itself (sol invictus) is the zero mark, flanked by 1's:

BC 1 - 0 - 1 AD

This would be consistent with the use of ELeven as a symbol for the gateway, or PoRTaL - and brings us back to the Rosy CROSS formula shown above. In the context of this system, 11 and multiples of 11 play a key role - both as a numerical value and as a symbol.
1 1 is a reiteration of the constellation, PILLARS, and related to the tradition giving rise to the Zohar's description of Daat as "The Key That Includes Six". It is an 'invisible' Sephiroth on the Tree as it doesn't come into play until One is ready to form the METATRON.

Your idea of a zero point has no basis in our calendar.

The crossing over point would be December 31, 1 BC to January 1, AD 1

If the Sol Invictus=0 we still have +6 days neither BC nor AD: “The Key That Includes Six” - one day for each planet to form the six-points of our solar STAR.
Check it out in the white field of this Rosicrucian symbol:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rose_Cross_Lamen.svg
...or, even more to the point, consider Metatron's Cube: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Fruit-of-Life_Platonic-Solids_02.jpg

I realize the cards themselves are 2-dimensional, but the structure of their organization is in 3-dimensions of space + the added dimension of Time.

 

[RLG]

If the Sol Invictus=0 we still have +6 days neither BC nor AD: “The Key That Includes Six” - one day for each planet to form the six-points of our solar STAR.

Sorry, but I thought we were talking about the Gregorian calendar. You're obviously talking about something you just made up to suit your own theory.
There are not '6 days that are neither BC nor AD'. It doesn't work that way.

The period from 25 Dec. to 31 Dec in the year 1 BC is STILL BC.

The calendar goes from one year BC to the next year AD without a break. So all your talk about this zero point is clearly wrong. It has nothing to do with the Gregorian calendar.

Since you're so interested in creating a calendar from the Tarot, it would help to know the basics of our own calendrical system.

 

[Yygdrasilian]

Argumentum 11

There are not '6 days that are neither BC nor AD'. It doesn't work that way.

The period from 25 Dec. to 31 Dec in the year 1 BC is STILL BC.

I suppose there are two ways of looking at it... but you must admit, there is a certain logic to what I am saying. If B.C. means "Before Christ" ( Ante Christum ), then those last six days don't really fit the description when Sol Invictus (Dec. 25th) is recognized as the date of Birth by the same institution sanctioning that calendar.

Does that make all the calendar information I've presented 'clearly wrong'?
Put another way - Does this negate the structural patterns to The Book of Thoth that I am attempting to bring to your attention?

 

[Debra]

Sorry, mistaken post.

 

[firecatpickles]

What about those of us who use B.C.E and C.E. instead? "Before the Common Era" and "Common Era" leaves much more play with dates that precisely 6 days.

 

[RLG]

Does this negate the structural patterns to The Book of Thoth that I am attempting to bring to your attention?

That depends on how important this bit of information is to your theory.

The fact is, that you manipulate a lot of numbers on the cards,and derive many planetary cycles from those numbers. And the numbers work out in many cases, although sometimes you are selective about whether to use reduced digits or full numbers, e.g., the sun is either 19 or 1 depending on what value you need for a certain equation.

But the fact of the matter is that none of your calculations could be done ahead of time by someone ignorant of the true values of those orbits. IOW, the reason you can manipulate the numbers so that you get a value for the synodic period of mars or mercury is because you know those values ahead of time.

You do not present any simple algorithms by which a person who does not know the final answers can derive those answers. When you use the reduced digits of the planetary trumps for all sorts of calculations, it can never be clear ahead of time which cards will provide which calculations. It would be more straightforward if, say, the mercury card actually had a certain number of objects on it that could be manipulated in a standard way to arrive at the orbital period of mercury itself. But when the calculations are based on cards that are not specific to certain planets, then there is no way one could derive algorithms for their use, or even know which ones to use, ahead of time.

So you can calculate all the orbital periods you want, but this is not evidence that any of that data was deliberately put there by the organizers of the tarot, or even known to them at all.

This is not to say that the numbers are wrong. Many of your manipulations of numbers do give references to planetary cycles. But their existence does not show prior knowledge of them or deliberate design of them into the tarot structure. You can only give evidence for that by showing a specific algorithm that can be used on specific cards to get a specific result, and this algorithm has to be usable by a person who does not know the answers in advance. Otherwise, all you're showing is how cleverly you can manipulate the digits on certain groups of tarot cards.

 

[Yygdrasilian]

Crux Ansata

That depends on how important this bit of information is to your theory.

This ‘bit’ may be viewed as part of a symbolic representation of the positional astronomy on the Sol Invictus of the year 1 BC - and, by logically applying the meanings of “BC” and “AD”, this date (Dec.25) and the Six days following are of a set that no longer qualify as 'Before Christ' and have yet to enter the 1st year 'Anno Domini'. It could be argued that this set of 7 planet days may be represented as the six-pointed STAR of David. Taking into consideration the symbolic association of ‘House’ to the Hebrew letter Beth, one could also make the case that the conjoining of these symbols is an expression of the YHShVH (Jesus) being born of the House of David. Furthermore, in the origin myth of this messianic super-hero, he is said to be both the incarnation of God (Jupiter=Deus Pater=God Father) and the son (Sun) of God (YHVH).

With regard to calculating Orbits and Synodic cycles, the status of these dates are of no consequence.
But I am curious nonetheless as to what Dionysius Exiguus might have thought of them.

...the reason you can manipulate the numbers so that you get a value for the synodic period of mars or mercury is because you know those values ahead of time.”

The orbital and synodic cycles of the 7 ‘Planets’ were known to the ancient world. So, it is feasible that the initiates (from at least the late medieval era up to the present day) to whom this system was entrusted were persons with an education in the liberal arts sufficient enough to be acquainted with the basics of astrology/astronomy.

You do not present any simple algorithms by which a person who does not know the final answers can derive those answers.

I’ve been of the opinion that this system is something of a lateral thinking puzzle - that part of its intended purpose is to be ‘figured out’. As it is most likely the product of an esoteric tradition, any algorithms (as in an ‘explicit set of instructions’) would need be transmitted orally, deduced by adepts attaining the requisite level of initiation, and/or cloaked in the allegorical symbolism of a mythology held in common by, or accessible to, its initiates.

That isn’t so say a simple set of rules doesn’t exist - and I certainly won’t discourage anyone from familiarizing themselves with this system and discovering those formulas for themselves. But I highly doubt, given the utility of the specific numbers in question for determining these orbital and synodic cycles, that they’re presence within Tarot/Kabbalah was arrived at by random.

This is not to say that the numbers are wrong. Many of your manipulations of numbers do give references to planetary cycles. But their existence does not show prior knowledge of them or deliberate design of them into the tarot structure.

So, then, you can calculate the odds of ‘their existence’ as a fluke?

 

[RLG]

This ‘bit’ may be viewed as part of a symbolic representation of the positional astronomy on the Sol Invictus of the year 1 BC - and, by logically applying the meanings of “BC” and “AD”, this date (Dec.25) and the Six days following are of a set that no longer qualify as 'Before Christ' and have yet to enter the 1st year 'Anno Domini'.

Dwtw

Are you sure that Jesus was born on Dec. 25 1 BC?, and not Dec. 25 AD 1?
Because if the alleged and obviously mythical birth of Christ happened in AD 1, your theory makes even less sense than the stretching you're attempting to do now.

The orbital and synodic cycles of the 7 ‘Planets’ were known to the ancient world. So, it is feasible that the initiates (from at least the late medieval era up to the present day) to whom this system was entrusted were persons with an education in the liberal arts sufficient enough to be acquainted with the basics of astrology/astronomy.

Naturally. I never said nor implied that the old astronomers didn't know these facts. What I said was that you could never calculate these figures from tarot card data without knowing the answers ahead of time. I seriously doubt you could calculate the orbital data for an unknown object and then show that there is a satellite of the sun that fits that data set.

There are any number of ways to combine the numbers found on tarot cards to create multiples and products, etc., some of which may be close to numbers representing planetary data. But without knowing the end-results ahead of time, you can not calculate anything, because you have no unequivocal rule to determine the orbital numbers.

I’ve been of the opinion that this system is something of a lateral thinking puzzle - that part of its intended purpose is to be ‘figured out’. As it is most likely the product of an esoteric tradition, any algorithms (as in an ‘explicit set of instructions’) would need be transmitted orally, deduced by adepts attaining the requisite level of initiation, and/or cloaked in the allegorical symbolism of a mythology held in common by, or accessible to, its initiates.

What is the purpose of such an oral history, if these astronomers knew the values of the planets orbits? They would just tell their students the values, and probably give them a simple means to figure them out. Your methods are not simple, and cannot be used by someone who doesn't know the end-values ahead of time. If you had one simple method of deriving all these figures, it would be more compelling, but your numbers are used in an ad hoc way to get the results that you want, (and already know ahead of time).

That isn’t to say a simple set of rules doesn’t exist - and I certainly won’t discourage anyone from familiarizing themselves with this system and discovering those formulas for themselves. But I highly doubt, given the utility of the specific numbers in question for determining these orbital and synodic cycles, that they’re presence within Tarot/Kabbalah was arrived at by random.

If these simple rules exist, you haven't found them yet. And the data was not arrived at by random chance. You selected the data you wanted, and manipulated the numbers to create known values for planetary periods. You don't have a basis to claim they were deliberately encoded in the cards.

So, then, you can calculate the odds of ‘their existence’ as a fluke?

They're not a fluke. They don't actually 'exist' at all. You're making this stuff up, plain and simple. It's very interesting that you can make some of the numbers work out, but you have no basis to claim that they were encoded into the tarot 'deliberately', and that's the key point. For that to be the case, there would have to be a way to do the calculations by someone who did not possess some hypothesized 'oral history'.

Simply put, there is no algorithm to create the results you want, and even your own methods don't always use the same values for the same card-numbers. It's all very subjective. Clever indeed, but very subjective. And that's all the time I can spare to comment on the subject. Thank you for your replies.

Litlluw
RLG

 

[conversus]

Regarding the Incarnation

When speaking of the mystery of the Incarnation as specified in the Creed :

Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.

There are three dates in the calendar (which ever one you happen to follow) to be considered. The earliest feast associated with the Incarnation to be commonly celebrated by the Eastern and Western Church was the Feast of the Epiphany (Theophany in the East) which was and is kept on January 6. The Latin West began to celebrate the Nativity on December 25 partially in order to place a "Christian" brand on a day already celebrated by their non-Christian neighbors. The common celebration of December 25 is a rather late development.

More interesting, perhaps, theologically is the Feast of the Annunciation, which is celebrated by the East and West on March 25 (yes, I know exactly 9 months to the day!). For the theologically astute, this is the actual day when the miracle of the INCARNATION occurred. The festivities associated with the Nativity and the Epiphany (Theophany) are revelations of the Big event, not the event itself.

The Julian Calendar does begin on January 1, but Christian usage started the new numbering of the years, not on January 1, but in March (Annunciation, Easter, Spring) ; a cultural usage that was not universally abandoned until way into the 18th Century (AD or CE take your pick!) as part of the Gregorian reform of the Calendar. This doesn't really allow for any six year-less days between December 25 or January 1 in year one (AD or CE). Day one of AD 1 was March 25, not December 25.

It is also rather perilous to assume that whenever it was that Jesus was actually born (or incarnated), assuming that he ever was, that he did so with any consideration of a Roman, rather than a Hebrew calendar!

CED

 

[RLG]

When speaking of the mystery of the Incarnation as specified in the Creed :

There are three dates in the calendar (which ever one you happen to follow) to be considered...
More interesting, perhaps, theologically is the Feast of the Annunciation, which is celebrated by the East and West on March 25 ... For the theologically astute, this is the actual day when the miracle of the INCARNATION occurred. The festivities associated with the Nativity and the Epiphany (Theophany) are revelations of the Big event, not the event itself.

The Julian Calendar does begin on January 1, but Christian usage started the new numbering of the years, not on January 1, but in March (Annunciation, Easter, Spring) ; a cultural usage that was not universally abandoned until way into the 18th Century (AD or CE take your pick!) as part of the Gregorian reform of the Calendar. This doesn't really allow for any six year-less days between December 25 or January 1 in year one (AD or CE). Day one of AD 1 was March 25, not December 25.

CED

It would make sense that the first day of AD 1 is March 25, the day of the Annunciation, and therefore the beginning of the common era would coincide exactly with this celebration. Thanks for pointing this out. The transition from Julian to Gregorian calendars involved not only the "loss" of 10 days, but a change in the date of New Year's Day as well.