Yygdrasilian's theory

[RLG]

"The first question here is how did these cards come to have these astrological associations, and the answer of course is via the Hebrew alefbet, and the attributions of those letters."

I don't believe this is so. the Attribution of cards to the alphabet came later, I believe. Can't remember who ... Levi, de Geblin?

Unless, of course, they came from a common origin as I have posited elsewhere.

I think we agree on that. Maybe I wasn't clear, but the evidence seems to strongly indicate that Court de Gebellin was the first to associate the Hebrew alefbet with the tarot, in 1781.

So that's what i meant by 'how did the cards get these associations'. The only reason we think of these cards having these astrological associations, in a particular order, is because the Hebrew alefbet got involved.

 

[RLG]

That's pretty interesting Huck. But you use the positions of the Hebrew letters as if there is a Zero at the beginning, which we can be pretty certain the older Hebrew kabbalists did not use; and then you don't use the zero when you're using the numbers of the sefirot.

However, if the Sefer Yetzirah is much later, coming after the advent of the concept of the Zero, then you have a stronger argument. So you would need to date the SY later. And you would also need to show where there is any evidence, other than your own calculations, that the kabbalists thought this number 286 was important, or that they ever used the numbers 32, 127 and 127 in some other context, which would show us that they thought it was important.

Specifically, why are you combining the numbers of the spheres - 55, with the numbers of the double letters - 72? Just to get at the sum of 127? If so, then where is the evidence that the number 127 was important in the kabbalah? And why are you not reducing the number 10 to the digit 1, like you did in all the other cases? Again, to get the number 127? If so, then this number must have been important, and popped up somewhere else.

I'm not saying this is all wrong, I'd just like to see evidence that these numbers were ever used in the kabbalah, which would give us some evidence that the calculations were made in the way that you are claiming.

I do like how you've arrived at these numbers, it's very intriguing. The SY is, as you say, about the spheres AND the paths. So if you have any other indications that these numbers were used in the kabbalah, it would be very interesting to see that.

 

[Huck]

... well, RLG, perhaps you don't understand something not really ..

Kabbala as a movement started 1170 AD in Provence and related itself to the text of Sepher Yetzirah, which is considerably older (at least about 600 years).
If the Kabbalists used "127" or understood the Sepher Yetzirah in its original context is similar of "no importance" in the theme "what's really inside the Sepher Yetzirah" as the use of schemes of the SY in the Tarot in later 19th century.

The combination of the numbers 32+72+55+127=286 shows "mathematical elegance" of an author with the problem to describe his object, the "32 ways of wisdom".
The "mathematical elegance" proves a sort of intention on the side of the author - and it proves the use of the sequence 0-21 (even if the author didn't use the cipher "0" ... I already commented this question)

The combination of the alternative possible combination 35+79+55+139 shows not "mathematical elegance" - naturally it cannot prove the intended use of the numbers 1-22.

Well, I think, you don't read carefully enough, somehow you seem to demand, that I repeat that, what I already said. Or perhaps you have no sense for "mathematical elegance".
In both aspects I really can't offer help. Perhaps you should read the Sepher Yetzirah, if you didn't, to get an impression, what kind of object this really is.

 

[firecatpickles]

The first question here is how did these cards come to have these astrological associations, and the answer of course is via the Hebrew alefbet, and the attributions of those letters.

These are Lurianic and have been around since the 16th century.

The astrological assignations can be found in Kabbalstic Universe, by Warren Kenton aka Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi.

Note that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are succeeded by a question mark since they were not discovered when this system was "invented" and are later attributed to the Sephirot.

 

[Yygdrasilian]

An Ode to Frances Yates

‘Zero’ and ‘cipher’ both derive from the arabic sifr - which, despite its similarity to that other semitic word, sepher, offers no hard proof The Fool was in fact meant to fool us. We are now perhaps too conditioned to the practice of a positional mathematics to really appreciate the existential quandary a concept of zero poses, but many an ancient philosopher wrestled with the paradoxical implications raised by a ‘nothing’ that could also be a ‘something’. In many respects, One might say this question Lies at the heart of all inquiry & endeavor... and may even be the very reason our Fool is a triumph with no number. Yet, whatever the implications of this nulla upon our sense of Being, we can all agree that zero is no prerequisite for an ability to subtract.

If all these parts of the puzzle can be demonstrated to have been in place at least as far back as the known history of the tarot, i.e., early 15th century, then there is evidence of the 365 theory. But if these pieces of the puzzle are not in place by the 15th century at the latest, then the 365 calculation cannot be said to have been deliberately encoded in the tarot sequence. It is a wonderful mathematical curiosity, but nothing more....

This theory just doesn't seem to hold water. If any strong evidence can be shown to prove this 365 calculation was deliberate, I'd be interested to see it.

The problem inherent in this objection to a ‘Y Theory’ is that the calculations of 365, a Metonic cycle, the Venus-Earth pentagram, Lunar synodic month, etc. are presented as 'the evidence' of this specific rationale behind the enumeration of trumps and their correspondences. The problem inherent in this theory, for which your objection is inevitably raised, stems from the proposition that, throughout the course of its history, this system has been concealed and encrypted to greater or lesser degrees. That is, after all, the very nature of an esoteric tradition ....of The Occult {{{oh, hallowed profanity!!!

The ‘wonderful mathematical curiosity’ I present to you is an attempt to show the ‘elegance’ of this system decoded. Whatever your opinion of the additive persistence of Digital Roots, it is an intrinsic piece of the theory I am proposing as it is necessary for both the grouping of Tarot into ‘constellations’, the derivation of sums used in the orbital & synodic formulas of a positional astrology/astronomy, and the symbolic representation of the Sol Invictus 1 BC - all of which work with it, and don’t without.

If you expect others to admit the possibility that their pet theory is mistaken, then you have to admit that same possibility in regard to your own.

Perhaps this is a system that has been perfected over time - a collective project refined by some of the greatest minds of the past few centuries ...or even millenia. Could be its the invention of a sole polymath working anonymously on Cipher Manuscripts both brilliant and insane. I don’t really know; but I am convinced that, as a whole, it represents a coherent system that is the product of intentional design. There are just too many pieces that ‘fit’ together too perfectly for it to be the product of coincidence.

 

[RLG]

... well, RLG, perhaps you don't understand something not really ..


The combination of the numbers 32+72+55+127=286 shows "mathematical elegance" of an author with the problem to describe his object, the "32 ways of wisdom".
The "mathematical elegance" proves a sort of intention on the side of the author - and it proves the use of the sequence 0-21 (even if the author didn't use the cipher "0" ... I already commented this question)


Well, I think, you don't read carefully enough, somehow you seem to demand, that I repeat that, what I already said. Or perhaps you have no sense for "mathematical elegance".
In both aspects I really can't offer help. Perhaps you should read the Sepher Yetzirah, if you didn't, to get an impression, what kind of object this really is.

Dwtw

Part of the problem in speaking with you is that your English does not always come across so well. I would gather that it is not your first language. So if I misunderstand what you say at times, it may be due to a minor language barrier.

But what I think you're saying here is that I'm asking for evidence that 127 is important, and you're saying that it's important because you can show that it comes up in the numbers of the Sefer Yetzirah.

Except that what you're doing is begging the question. I understand that the numbers show up when you play with the part of the SY in the way that you do. What I'm asking is, can you show me anywhere in the kabbalistic literature that anyone has ever alluded to this? Has any kabbalist ever shown that the number 127 is important? We know 32 is important, since it is plainly stated to be such in the SY itself. But what about 127?

I understand that it's mathematically elegant to add two sets of numbers and they both sum to 127. My point is, that is something YOU did. Where is the evidence that any kabbalist before you ever did that? Specifically, a kabbalist connected with the Sefer Yetzirah and its authorship, (whenever that might have been).

When you say, "look at all these pretty numbers", and I say, "where is the evidence that these numbers were know or important to the old kabbalists?", you can't prove your point by saying, "the numbers are pretty".
Yes, they are pretty. They are elegant. And if I wanted to I could make up some pretty ones too. But that's not the same as evidence that they were ever intended to be used that way.

For example, the sum of the numbers from 1-12 is 78. Does that mean that the inventor of the Tarot meant for the 78 cards to indicate some numerical mystery about the numbers from 1 to 12? Maybe, and maybe not, but I would have to have some evidence that 12 played a major role in the tarot's structure to be able to claim that. And even more, I would have to be able to break the tarot into 12 different groups of cards, with each group containing a different number of cards from 1 to 12.

Now frankly, I can't do that. And since I can't, I don't have much basis to claim that the number of cards in the tarot, 78, has much to do with the sum of the numbers from 1 to 12.

I am the one who added up those numbers and got 78. That doesn't mean that the inventor of the tarot did that. So it remains an interesting coincidence, and nothing more, until proven otherwise.

What I'm asking for from you is not a repetition of what you said. I understand that the numbers work out and you get groups of 32, 127 and 127. That's very nice. I'm asking for something, somewhere, that shows that someone other than yourself had any inkling about this fact, had ever used the numbers that you're talking about, or that ever indicated that these numbers, especially 127, ever played an important role in the kabbalah.

I don't think it's hard to understand that I'm asking for evidence other than your own calculations. And I'm asking the same thing of the person who came up with this 'theory' in the first place. And so far I've gotten nothing. except that, "the numbers work out", and "of course there's no record, because it's a mystery". Well, that's no evidence at all. That's begging the question.

You can't prove your theory by using your conclusions as premises.


But just to be clear, I think it's wonderful that you and Mr. Y can look at the Hebrew and the tarot in this way. It's very creative, and shows that you're interested in studying the matter and coming up with fresh approaches. But that doesn't prove a thing about whether any kabbalist, or creator of the tarot, ever did the same thing. Until there's some real evidence, this is just something that came out of your own researches. And that's not such a bad thing, is it?



Litlluw
RLG

 

[RLG]

Perhaps this is a system that has been perfected over time - a collective project refined by some of the greatest minds of the past few centuries ...or even millenia. Could be its the invention of a sole polymath working anonymously on Cipher Manuscripts both brilliant and insane. I don’t really know; but I am convinced that, as a whole, it represents a coherent system that is the product of intentional design. There are just too many pieces that ‘fit’ together too perfectly for it to be the product of coincidence.

Dwtw

The trouble is that you still cannot show that there is any algorithm involved in all your calculations. Yes, you have manipulated numbers to get the results of planetary data that you knew ahead of time. You already know the orbit of Mercury. But if you didn't, how would you go about, in a systematic way, to discover it through the use of the tarot? You still haven't told me that.

The fact is, that there are many ways to use the exact same sets of numbers, and NOT get any planetary data at all. So your selection of what numbers to manipulate is subjective, and informed by knowing the answers ahead of time. And you use different methods for different planets, and sometimes reduce digits and sometimes don't, and it's pretty clear that there is no way to know what method to use ahead of time, which would be necessary if one really wanted to conceal all this intentionally.

As far as the Sun being trump 19, and relating to the Metonic cycle, that's not such a big deal. If a tarot inventor was going to have the cards of the Sun, Moon and Stars in that part of the sequence anyway, then why not just make sure that the Sun is 19, and not 18 or 17. Not a whole lot of mystery to that one. Not much different than always insisting on the Death card being 13 because it's an unlucky number. So that's an easy one. I don't think it's very deeply hidden, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that someone put that card there deliberately, instead of in position 18 or 17.

But the fact that the Hebrew letter attributed to that card is also attributed to the Sun? That was done by the Golden Dawn, and had no precedence in the Sefer Yetzirah, where all the other attributions are drawn from. So it's hardly a big mystery in that case either. An earlier person deliberately wanted the Sun to be 19 because of the metonic cycle, and Mathers deliberately made the letter Resh the letter of the Sun, so that the letter-attribution and card would line up. If that's the story-line, it's not terribly surprising, or revelatory, especially since by the time of Mathers, the necessity of hiding any information about the metonic cycle would be moot.

As I said in my other post, I think the calculations you make are interesting, but there's little to no evidence that any of this was deliberately encoded. You need a simple set of objective rules to follow in order to make your calculations, and so far I don't see any.


By the Trigrammaton English Gematria:

231 = a vessel of quicksilver.

Now quicksilver is Mercury, who is a counterpart to Thoth, and the Tarot is called the Book of Thoth by Crowley. So by this gematria result, should I conclude that the originators of the tarot deliberately chose 22 cards, and numbered them from 0 to 21 so that the sum of their Roman numerals would be equivalent to a phrase referring obliquely to Thoth?

Not really. But I can use the gematria result to inform my understanding of the nature of the tarot. It's an interesting result, that came out of my own work, but I wouldn't be justified in claiming it was deliberately encoded. I think the same is true of any planetary data that is derived from the manipulation of the trump numbers of the tarot.



Litlluw
RLG

 

[Yygdrasilian]

Imperitis Rapophagis,

Your demands for historical documentation are understandable, but you continue to overlook the fact that evidence of conscious purpose in the mathematical design of Tarot is itself a form of historical documentation.

...just to be clear, I think it's wonderful that you and Mr. Y can look at the Hebrew and the tarot in this way. It's very creative, and shows that you're interested in studying the matter and coming up with fresh approaches. But that doesn't prove a thing about whether any kabbalist, or creator of the tarot, ever did the same thing. Until there's some real evidence, this is just something that came out of your own researches. And that's not such a bad thing, is it?

To draw an analogy, it is as if you deny Book III of Trithemius’ Steganographia as an encrypted document simply because Trithemius failed to write an explicit confession detailing how and why he made it thus.

 

[Yygdrasilian]

On The Art of Juggling

The trouble is that you still cannot show that there is any algorithm involved in all your calculations. Yes, you have manipulated numbers to get the results of planetary data that you knew ahead of time. You already know the orbit of Mercury. But if you didn't, how would you go about, in a systematic way, to discover it through the use of the tarot? You still haven't told me that.

18: The Moon / Pisces = 9 ------------------- 2: Priestess / Moon = 2
1: Magus / Mercury = 1 ----------------------- 1: Magus / Mercury = 1
3: Empress / Venus = 3 ----------------------- 3: Empress / Venus = 3
16: Tower / Mars = 7 --------------------------- 16: Tower / Mars = 7
10: Fortune / Jupiter = 1 ---------------------- 10: Fortune / Jupiter = 1
21: Universe / Saturn = 3 --------------------- 21: Universe / Saturn = 3

88 = 19 + 18 + 1 + 3 + 16 + 10 + 21
88 = Mercury Orbit

I imagine this is part of the reason why there are 2 moons.

And, as I 've said before, this is a riddle to be solved, like a lateral thinking puzzle, not a textbook. As such, it works much better as a Method of Loci mnemonic device. Though I suspect your request for a simple algorithm would be along the lines of an algebraic formula, you might consider how incompatible that would be with an additive (as opposed to positional) numeric system like Roman numerals. However, you may note that the values I use are all factors, multiples or remainders consistent within groupings by type and digital root.

 

[RLG]

Your demands for historical documentation are understandable, but you continue to overlook the fact that evidence of conscious purpose in the mathematical design of Tarot is itself a form of historical documentation.
To draw an analogy, it is as if you deny Book III of Trithemius’ Steganographia as an encrypted document simply because Trithemius failed to write an explicit confession detailing how and why he made it thus.

Okay then, if the only evidence you have to offer is the calculations you've made, then that is not evidence of conscious purpose. It's evidence of what you've calculated.
I'm not sure why it's important for there to have been a conscious purpose in the first place. If the only evidence you have is your own calculations, then so be it. You found some nice mathematical enigmas in the tarot numbering.

I understand you point about an encrypted document, but so far you've addressed none of my questions. All you've done is repeat your formulas. You ignore or don't address how the tarot got mixed up with those astrological associations in the first place, which is where the purposeful intent would have had to enter the picture.

Resh was never the letter of the Sun in the original kabbalah.
Resh is not the 19th letter of Hebrew.
There was no zero used in the letter-values of Hebrew.

You use 19 when it suits you, and 1 when it suits you, to indicate Resh/Sun/XIX in your calculations. There is a certain subjectivity in your processes.

Of course if the document is encrypted, then its up to you to decode it. And if you succeed in decoding it, then you have all the evidence you need to claim you have found the plaintext. But using whatever key gives you the numbers that you *already know in the first place* is not very convincing. A cryptanalyst doesn't know the plaintext of a secret message before he decodes it.

It's probably not worth saying much more on the subject. You seem pretty convinced that you have evidence of purposeful intent. All I'm saying is that it doesn't look so crystal clear to an objective bystander. But I'm sure that people much more intelligent than myself could make a better analysis of the situation. And maybe I'm wrong about the whole thing, and someone DID encode all that data into the tarot. Too bad it didn't tell us anything we didn't already know by now.