Xrysalida
I tried to find the reading and your inter. I want to see it
but the link says that the page is not found and I didn't find it either in Your Readings
I tried to find the reading and your inter. I want to see it
Elemental Dignity Rules
- Fire and Air are friendly and strengthen each other for good or ill
- Water and Earth are friendly and strengthen each other for good or ill
- Fire and Water are unfriendly and weaken each other
- Air and Earth are unfriendly and weaken each other
- Fire and Earth are neutral to each other, but neutral interactions are considered friendly
- Air and Water are neutral to each other, but neutral interactions are considered friendly
Hi all,
My semi scientific and wannabe logical mind has trouble with the Air/Earth unfriendly (nature needs an atmosphere to grow and develop) and Fire/Earth neutral (fire destroy what grows).
I just can't accept a statement if I don't see the logic behind it. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying it is BS, I just need to know how one comes to this conclusion and I am really looking forward to developing my knowledge of elemental dignities.
Kissa
That's as good an explanation as any. However, without Earth, there would be no Air: Without the gravitational field provided by the Earth, the molecules of the gases comprising air would disperse and dissipate into outer space......Air/Earth: Unfriendly combination. Air don't like to be contained and heaviness of the Earth drags it down. Here active and passive elements don't mix well......
I don't think it is possible to justifiy ED rationally. It's more a system of abstract algebraic rules. The so-called 'reason' for Air and Earth being 'unfriendly' is just a learning device: an artifice to jog our memory about how Air and Earth interract in the context of ED. Likewise, 'Water puts out Fire' just reminds us that Water and Fire are 'unfriendly' as regards ED. Otherwise, fire and water combine to make steam (in physics) or the Philosopher's Stone (in alchemy).
IIRC, by traditional Golden Dawn rules, AC is only looked at when they are opposites, and then they knock each other out, leaving just B. I never pay attention to AC and by looking at BA and BC, I think I cover ABC pretty well.Card A - Card B - Card C
B is the main focus. Then I think the following needs to be taken into consideration:
BA, BC, AC and then ABC to read the cards. Is this correct?
Thanks Ziev! If you have any questions about the previous exercises, please post them in the appropriate exercise. I still have my Original Rider Waite deck set aside with the already pulled cards on the bottom and the remaining cards on the top. I'm happy to post new exercises if/when there is interest.Also, Rodney (if you are reading this) you are a wealth of information and I really appreciate all the work you put into this thread and the EDSG threads. Thank you.
Best ~Ziev