Aeclectic Tarot Forum

Aeclectic Tarot Forum (https://www.tarotforum.net/index.php)
-   Thoth Tarot (https://www.tarotforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   Book of Thoth Study Group: Part 1 - Section 1 (https://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=58192)

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 00:45
I hope that wasn't too confusing... :-?

[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]
Geometrically, you have created a two-dimensional single shape out of two distinct objects, where the line B-C of the first triangle can be considered geometrically IDENTICAL to the line D-E of the second. This transformation happens only at ONE POINT (geometrically) of the design. This is the Rose Point in the Unicursal Hexagram.
[/QUOTE]

Geometrically, it means that instead of two triangles A-B-C + D-E-F, you have a hexagram created by lines by the intersection of these two triangles (A-B-E-F-D-C) where the lines B-E and D-C in the hexagram can be defined so that they are mathematically identical to the lines B-C and D-E of the original two triangles.

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 00:50
[QUOTE=Aeon418]I think it's usually called cheating. LOL :laugh:[/QUOTE]

Yep. But maybe it can be taken as "grace" as well? "Wiggle-room"?

Not everything is set in stone, even God can be - ahem - "persuaded"; shades of Aleph=0 - OR - 1?

This fits in with rabbinical hermeneutics for me. You can even haggle with the Torah? If not the letters, then the value?

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 01:08
[QUOTE=Scion]Oh, Ross...

Beautifully, beautifully, [b]beautifully[/b] said. This has been staying with me all day. Many thanks.

Scion[/QUOTE]

Thank you Scion. I can only add, that I truly believe it.

It may be somewhat difficult to find a quotidian ethics, the solution to day-to-day problems, in such an abstract formulation. But at least the knowledge of it gives you freedom from the eternal punishment salesmen, who take in so many. That alone is worth the price of going this far out.

Ross

Netzach
28-04-2006 01:11
[QUOTE=Aeon418]As far as I know Blavatsky died in 1891. Alan Bennett didn't become a Buddhist monk unti 1900/1901. He may have had contact with some of Blavatsky's heirs when he lead the first Buddhist mission to the west.[/QUOTE]

You're right, of course. For some reason I was thinking that she died later than this.

[QUOTE=Aeon418]How do you spell La-el in hebrew in a way that makes it equal 61. AL, Aleph - Lamed = 31. LA, Lamed - Aleph = 31. Total 62. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Thanks for pointing that out Aeon! Didn't notice it, but should've. I guess, to be generous, that the Rabbi was equating the two Alephs, maybe eliding them (l'el) or (la'l) in pronunciation. [/QUOTE]

Only one aleph. La is an "inseparable preposition".

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 01:29
[QUOTE=Netzach]
Only one aleph. La is an "inseparable preposition".[/QUOTE]

Thanks! That's good to know. Is that a rule of all Hebrew, or just Midrashic, Talmudic, medieval, etc.?

One should always know the original text and/or context of one's sources.

I just noticed, checking the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) how many of the LA's ("Thou shalt not"'s) are followed by Tavs! Nine out of ten! That's way beyond coincidence. There must be commentary on it.

(I was checking to see if the inseparable rule was Biblical or not)

Aeon418
28-04-2006 02:29
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]draw two triangles, one upright A-B-C and one downward D-E-F (The letters are the points of the triangles). Make B-C the bottom line of the first, and D-E the top line of the second. Label the angles, and cut the triangles (they don't have to be perfect triangles for this exercise).

Now, how do you "unite" the two triangles? That is, how do you make two distinct triangles with only one line? Mathematically, they can only be united if *at least* one part of each is identical in both. Then you can create a new shape where both triangles have preserved their identity.

If you overlap the triangles so that you have a normal hexagram, a Star of David, you can do something to unite them.

Slit the lines so that you can make a nice Star of David.

Insert the triangles.

Draw a unicursal hexagram on the Star of David.[/QUOTE]
I just noticed that this method of creating a Unicursal Hexagram also creates two different pentagrams at the same time. One upright and the other inverted or "averse", both of which are used in the two Thelemic pentagram rituals that Crowley created. It probably means nothing, but I still think it's pretty interesting. Cheers Ross! :D

Netzach
28-04-2006 04:41
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Thanks! That's good to know. Is that a rule of all Hebrew, or just Midrashic, Talmudic, medieval, etc.? [/QUOTE]

This is classical (ie Biblical) Hebrew. I don't know about the later versions! There are three inseparable prepositions - lamed (to/for), bet(in/with/by) and kap (as/like). My Hebrew textbook says "These prepositions have no existence as separate words but, like the article, they attach themselves, as prefixes, to the words they govern." The conjunction "and" (vav) is also inseparable.

ravenest
28-04-2006 11:24
2 cents
 
Trying to catch up, friend took computer back, working at library again (think its kids story day !!!!)

Going thru the last posts a few things I wanted to respond to:

The proof of 0=2?
We must remember it is two opposite pairs that make zero, so the proof in formulae, -1 + 1 = 0.

Gematric values can ge adjusted to mean anything ( GOD = DOG) .
R.A.Wilson has written good stuff on this where he proves God is unity and devision and the devil and ... the main thing is the change in conciousness that occurs when one continually uses this type of interrelated thinking. The brain (after a time of automatically making its own correspondances to stimula) begins working in a mode of active meditation. I dont believe the real value is in the exercise it is in the results, a change in conciousness.

"ÍTO entierly dedicated to sex magic"?
Wrong! The OTO has a much bigger agenda; to help one find their true will, to create a magical fraternity, To engage in a social experiment, etc, etc.

AA is not connected to OTO, one is not a part or inner circle or whatever of the other, they are totally different AA is inner order (secret chiefs) OTO is outer order (human temporal chief), many other differences as well.

Abrac
28-04-2006 15:54
ravenest, by saying "entirely," I never meant it in the sense that that is [i]exclusively[/i] the only thing the OTO is dedicated to, but that they are dedicated to it [i]fully,[/i] and in every way.

Not that I hold Lon Milo Duquette as the final word by any means, but since many participating in this study seem to regard him as a distinguished authority, let us see what he says about the matter:

"Magically, however, the Order exists [i]primarily[/i] to protect and [i]perpetuate[/i] a particular magical secret of great potential efficacy."

"This supreme secret is a particular technique of sexual magick."

Lon Milo DuQuette; Understanding Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot; Weiser Books, 2003; Pages 76, 77. (Italics Mine)

-fof

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 21:53
[QUOTE=Netzach]This is classical (ie Biblical) Hebrew. I don't know about the later versions! There are three inseparable prepositions - lamed (to/for), bet(in/with/by) and kap (as/like). My Hebrew textbook says "These prepositions have no existence as separate words but, like the article, they attach themselves, as prefixes, to the words they govern." The conjunction "and" (vav) is also inseparable.[/QUOTE]

You're right - I knew that. I guess I was puzzled by the orthography in the original post "la-el". I totally forgot that the "a" in "la" would be a vowel (written underneath) the inseparable "L", meaning "to".

Of course if the word was "la" (pronounced "lo"), that would mean "not" or "no", and that's not what the story said.

I looked in Psalm 53 to see if it says "lo el" ("The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'"), but it says "eyn elohim". I don't know if the phrase "la el" exists (lamed-alef alef-lamed).


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 19:10.