Barleywine's Thoth 101 Beginner Class

[Barleywine]

I would like to move on to the rest of Part 1 of the Book of Thoth, which we're going to cherry-pick for the ideas that are most relevant to our ultimate goal of exploring the cards. A lot of it is fairly basic historical information and therefor extraneous to our purpose, since most of us here already have a working knowledge of the history of the tarot. I will list the sections individually and summarize what I see as the key points for discussion; if there seems to be nothing pertinent in them we will skip past them, since you can always read them on your own and bring to the group anything you want explained.

[Barleywine]

19 minutes ago, Ruby Jewel said:

Alongside Jung's "Psychological Types", astrology gives a description of "moral characteristics" so I am wondering how much of his characteristics for these living entities comes from astrology. It seems he ought to have had a resource other than his imagination to have been taken so seriously by so many. Or is that the function of the Sephiroths? (sp)

In his lifetime he published quite a bit of astrological material as the ghostwriter for Evangeline Adams (Astrology: Your Place in the Sun and Astrology: Your Place Under the Stars). This material was recently reissued by the Ordo Templi Orientis under Crowley's own name. When you know what you're looking at, it's easy to see his unique style shining through. Certainly his discussion of the zodiacal and planetary attributions for the cards (a legacy of his Golden Dawn period) benefited from his astrological knowledge. It's kind of funny that the slim astrological volume he published on his own at that time seemed unimpressive when his hired work for Adams was quite good.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

The Book of Thoth, Part One, Sub-Part I, The Theory of the Tarot

 

We will cover the key points in each section and leave the rest for your personal study. We can always discuss anything you want to bring up.

 

The Contents of the Tarot - Nothing new worth talking about here.

 

The Origin of the Tarot - Since Crowley dismissed the various imaginative origin theories that have since been debunked, we will too.

The Theory of the Correspondences of the Tarot - He spends some time talking about the interrelationship of words and numbers as used in the Hebrew language, and rejects as absurd the idea that there was a "fantastic assembly of learned rabbins" who put it all together. But he concludes by saying: "Nevertheless, the evidence is equally strong that there is something, not a little of something but a great deal of something, a something which excludes all reasonable theories of coincidence, in the correspondence between words and numbers." (He's not as verbose as Waite, but definitely getting there.)

 

Echoing (or prefiguring) his description of the cards as "living beings," he goes on to say: "It is an undeniable fact that any given number is not merely one more than the previous number and one less than the subsequent number, but is an independent individual idea, a thing in itself; a spiritual, moral and intellectual substance, not only as much as, but a great deal more than, any human being. Its merely mathematical relations are indeed the laws of its being, but they do not constitute the number, any more than the chemical and physical laws of reaction in the human anatomy give a complete picture of a man." I think Agrippa would have agreed.

 

We should keep these observations in mind as we consider the numerical underpinning of his system, much of which derives from Pythagoras in addition to the Tree of Life. From an esoteric perspective, number theory was obviously more important to him than even the elemental associations of the suits.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

7 hours ago, fire cat pickles said:

I'm here 🙂

 

What I sense is Crowley's need to synthesize emotion or mood into chemical or even three-dimensional, palpable ideas or cues in order to explain them (referring to the lesser keys here.) It's almost as if the minors are different individuals with their own personalities (angels and demons?) Don't each of us have aspects of these people in ourselves? If we come to a better understanding of these keys through studying them we may better understand ourselves then.

Crowley had a ready-made "mannequin" to hang his ideas on: the Tree of Life. Each sephira embodies qualities of the "Celestial Man" (Wisdom, Understanding, Mercy, Severity, Harmony, etc.) The minor cards, and to some extent the court cards, partake of these traits through numerical correspondence. For example, all of the Fives are of the nature of Mars, which corresponds to the fifth sephira, and Mars is one tough customer. Crowley considered all of the Fives to be disruptive for this reason, and Harris captured this quite well in her art.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Barleywine

[KaiNO]

I know very little about Crowley thus far, so I don't have much to contribute with yet in any conversation. But today my postman delivered The Book of Thoth, so I've just started to look in the book and read a little, and keep track of what is being written here ☺️

[Starlight]

12 hours ago, Barleywine said:

Echoing (or prefiguring) his description of the cards as "living beings," he goes on to say: "It is an undeniable fact that any given number is not merely one more than the previous number and one less than the subsequent number, but is an independent individual idea, a thing in itself; a spiritual, moral and intellectual substance, not only as much as, but a great deal more than, any human being. Its merely mathematical relations are indeed the laws of its being, but they do not constitute the number, any more than the chemical and physical laws of reaction in the human anatomy give a complete picture of a man." I think Agrippa would have agreed.

This is DEEP!! 😮

 

12 hours ago, Barleywine said:

From an esoteric perspective, number theory was obviously more important to him than even the elemental associations of the suits.

I will keep this in mind.

The RWS system, as I understand it - please correct me if I'm wrong, uses numerology if multiples of a number appear in the spread. (I.e. 3 or 4 of the same number in the minor arcana.) In the Thoth system is the numerology of each card in a spread interpreted whether or not that number shows up again in the spread?

That the numerology is more important than the suits and elements is quite startling, but I'll do my best to remember. 

That said, did Crowley see all 3s, for ex., as saying the same thing?

[Barleywine]

1 hour ago, Starlight said:

This is DEEP!! 😮

 

I will keep this in mind.

The RWS system, as I understand it - please correct me if I'm wrong, uses numerology if multiples of a number appear in the spread. (I.e. 3 or 4 of the same number in the minor arcana.) In the Thoth system is the numerology of each card in a spread interpreted whether or not that number shows up again in the spread?

That the numerology is more important than the suits and elements is quite startling, but I'll do my best to remember. 

That said, did Crowley see all 3s, for ex., as saying the same thing?

There is a whole section coming up on tarot and numbers, but I will say that Crowley's main source of number theory was the ten sephiroth (which in Hebrew literally means "counting, enumeration") of the Tree of Life. The "spheres" (or numbers) from One to Ten go from top to bottom, showing the process of manifestation or emanation of spiritual energy into material form. This is why Crowley considered the Aces to be the most free and formless of the small cards and the Tens the most constrained (since the energy is nearly exhausted). He also used Pythagorean number theory - the Point, the Line, the Plane, the Cube, etc. - but he had to get creative after the Six and fell back on qabalistic numbering to some extent. (I found the same thing when I tried to read Agrippa on numbers.) Each card carries the nature of its number, which is modified by the qualities of its suit, and they do apply for even a single instance of any card in a spread. So all the Threes are about expansion, progress and opportunity (yes, even the 3 of Swords, as in "obviously it has to get better") in the areas of life indicated by the applicable suit. Here is a brief summary of the meanings of the numbers; we will get into more detail later. You could skip ahead to Crowley's discussion of the "Naples Arrangement," but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

Ace: A period of preparing to begin.
Two: A period of commencement and compromise.
Three: A period of growth and progress.
Four: A period of consolidation.
Five: A period of challenge and upset.
Six: A period of harmony restored.
Seven: A period of pursuing and testing new options.
Eight: A period of adjustment and anxiety.
Nine: A period of re-centering and reconciliation.
Ten: A period of rest and relative inactivity.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

11 hours ago, KaiNO said:

I know very little about Crowley thus far, so I don't have much to contribute with yet in any conversation. But today my postman delivered The Book of Thoth, so I've just started to look in the book and read a little, and keep track of what is being written here ☺️

You'll have your hands full just trying to get your head around some of his concepts, and his language is often abstruse to the point of being impenetrable to normal thought. But the most arcane sections are ahead, and I don't plan on delving into them since they won't add much to individual card study. We aren't going to do a straight read-through of every sentence since I think it would sink the ship. But by all means read it, if only to recognize that the Book of Thoth is a lifetime pursuit.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Barleywine

[fire cat pickles]

Is it going to help to remember our old, trusty Kaballah terms or chuck them? What I mean to ask is, how close was Crowley's  vision of the Sephirot's meanings (if this is the right word to use) to the "original", or classical (again, if this is the right word to use) Hebrew? For example:

 

Keter: Crown; Chockmah, Wisdom; Binah, Understanding; Chesed, Mercy, etc.

 

...or does he depart from these ideas completely?

 

 

[Barleywine]

31 minutes ago, fire cat pickles said:

Is it going to help to remember our old, trusty Kaballah terms or chuck them? What I mean to ask is, how close was Crowley's  vision of the Sephirot's meanings (if this is the right word to use) to the "original", or classical (again, if this is the right word to use) Hebrew? For example:

 

Keter: Crown; Chockmah, Wisdom; Binah, Understanding; Chesed, Mercy, etc.

 

...or does he depart from these ideas completely?

 

 

Crowley's system was thoroughly Golden-Dawn-based except where he determined it should be updated with his own vision. He used the "classical" Kircher Tree with all of the usual meanings for the sephiroth, but got more creative with the paths and their Major Arcana associations. Study of the paths is a bit more than we want to attempt, I think, except perhaps to discuss which trumps link which sephiroth, and what that might mean. A good example would be Art/ Temperance linking the spheres of the Moon and the Sun on the "Path of the Arrow" (which can be tied into the Sagittarius correspondence). But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

The Book of Thoth, Part One, Sub-Part I, The Theory of the Tarot

 

The Evidence for the Initiated Tradition of the Tarot

 

The four sub-parts of this section are almost entirely historical, pertaining to Continental occultism before Crowley's time and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in England (and, not coincidentally, Crowley's self-congratulatory crowing about the things he "fixed" in the previous systems. I'm not going to explore it here; there are a couple of interesting histories of the Golden Dawn on-line for fact-checking if you're so inclined. But it would be a good idea for you to download a copy of the Golden Dawn's Liber T (Benebell Wen has or had one on her website) and a copy of Jim Eshelman's Liber Theta from the College of Thelema website for comparison to Crowley's work. When we get down to specific cards, we will be comparing the GD interpretations to Crowley's to see what he accepted of it and what he rejected.

 

We will move on to Sub-Part II of Part One in my next post.

 

 

[Starlight]

On 7/5/2019 at 6:45 PM, Barleywine said:

Ace: A period of preparing to begin.
Two: A period of commencement and compromise.
Three: A period of growth and progress.
Four: A period of consolidation.
Five: A period of challenge and upset.
Six: A period of harmony restored.
Seven: A period of pursuing and testing new options.
Eight: A period of adjustment and anxiety.
Nine: A period of re-centering and reconciliation.
Ten: A period of rest and relative inactivity.

Thank you! 🙂

 

10 hours ago, Barleywine said:

But it would be a good idea for you to download a copy of the Golden Dawn's Liber T (Benebell Wen has or had one on her website) and a copy of Jim Eshelman's Liber Theta from the College of Thelema website for comparison to Crowley's work.

I'll go download these now.

 

 

[fire cat pickles]

11 hours ago, Barleywine said:

But it would be a good idea for you to download a copy of the Golden Dawn's Liber T

Are you referring Mathers' Book T?

[Barleywine]

22 hours ago, fire cat pickles said:

Are you referring Mathers' Book T?

Yes, but it wasn't entirely his work. There was input from Harriet Felkin and probably from others like Florence Farr. Here is a link on Benebell Wen's blog site for downloading it. Also, back on AT, Abrac put together a fully-illustrated version that he called the "Ultimate Book T."

 

https://benebellwen.com/tarot-readings/public-domain-tarot-books/

[TheFeeLion]

On 7/5/2019 at 10:45 PM, Barleywine said:

You could skip ahead to Crowley's discussion of the "Naples Arrangement," but I wouldn't recommend it.

Lol I'd agree with that! That was pretty much the part I read first and it took me ages to even marginally wrap my head head around it. I'm pretty sure I only digested a small portion of it too!

 

On 7/5/2019 at 10:45 PM, Barleywine said:

Ace: A period of preparing to begin.
Two: A period of commencement and compromise.
Three: A period of growth and progress.
Four: A period of consolidation.
Five: A period of challenge and upset.
Six: A period of harmony restored.
Seven: A period of pursuing and testing new options.
Eight: A period of adjustment and anxiety.
Nine: A period of re-centering and reconciliation.
Ten: A period of rest and relative inactivity.

I can tell this is going to come in handy later 🙂

 

I've downloaded all three of those books now, I'm looking forward to all the notes I'll be taking lol 😂

[Barleywine]

The Book of Thoth, Part One, Sub-part II, The Tarot and the Holy Qabalah

 

Here is the "meat" of Crowley's method (or madness, depending on how you view his approach) regarding the Minor Arcana. He refers to the "Holy Qabalah," but he's really only talking about the Tree of Life; the rabbinical Qabalah is a vast mystical and religious subject that MacGregor Mathers took on in The Kabbalah Unveiled, which I believe was based on Knorr von Rosenroth's translation from Hebrew into Latin. The Golden Dawn and Crowley were more interested in the Hermetic (or Christian) Qabalah.

 

The key point in this section is that the Tree of Life with its ten emanations is a "pictorial representation of the Universe," a map of the "Descent of Spirit into Matter." Crowley explained his understanding of how this works in the "Naples Arrangement" (so-called, I suspect, because he was in Naples when he conceived it). In it he described the three phases of "nothingness" ' basically an empty void that becomes filled with Light as manifestation progresses, and that Light takes on material substance in ten increasingly concrete iterations as it descends. He then goes into the Pythagorean concepts of the Point, the Line, the Plane (or Triangle) and the Solid (Cube). After that he talks about the Five as an expression of movement over time, then about the Six as the emergence of self-awareness in an "as above, so below" sense, and as the "centre of the system." Next he takes a detour into Vedantic terms, talking about the Seven, Eight and Nine as Sat (Being), Chit (Thought) and Ananda (Bliss) describing the dimensions of experience necessary to becoming a fully realized and self-conscious individual. To be honest, not having a background in Hindu mysticism, I never got much out of these points. Later in the book, Crowley more helpfully observes that the Sevens and Eights are "low down on the Tree and off the Middle Pillar," which makes them unbalanced and of reduced potency; the Nine then shows a return to equilibrium on the Middle Pillar. Also, after the Six, we find that the subtle energies are becoming - at least incipiently - more organized and particularized in material form, so the Seven, Eight and Nine represent the conceptual underpinnings of the physical plane, the Ideas behind the Reality, which are fully established in the Ten. At the end of the section, Crowley states: "In other words, to describe Reality in the form of Knowledge, one must postulate these ten successive ideas."

 

This is all stage-setting for our upcoming examination of the Minor Arcana. While we don't have to categorically accept Crowley's assumptions about the nature of Reality and the Universe, this section provides a good framework for describing how the cards of the Thoth deck work together as a system.

 

I don't want to overload you, but if you have an interest in exploring the Tree of Life more thoroughly, Dion Fortune's Mystical Qabalah is a good place to start.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Barleywine

[Starlight]

"One must begin, as a mathematician would, with the idea of Zero, Absolute Zero, which turns out on examination to mean any quantity that one may choose, but not, as the layman may at first suppose, Nothing, in the "absence-of-anything" vulgar sense of the word."

 

So, is this basically saying that 0 is pure potential? It is what existed before the Universe, for example? It's - I wish I was a physicist - what all matter and all creation materialised from? (I'm going to need a coffee, I think. Even that much is HURTING MY BRAIN. LOL)

 

Or am I describing Ain-Sof. And if so, what is the other type of Not-Just-Nothing?

Edited July 7, 2019 by Starlight

[KaiNO]

Now we come in on topics that I recently have looked at on my own. I am on my way exploring the fascinating Tree of Life for myself, something I find very interesting.

 

Great that you present the essence of each sub-chapter, Barleywine 👍

[Starlight]

"One must formulate this thesis: If there is anything except Nothing, it must exist within this Boundless Light; within this Space; within this inconceivable Nothingness, which cannot exist as Nothing-ness, but has to be conceived of as a Nothingness composed of the annihilation of two imaginary opposites."

 

Why must two imaginary opposites *annihilate* each other?

 

I know a lot of this was written around or after the Crimean War, the Boer War (possibly WW1?) so is this why he's using this type of language? Did the times he live in overshadow his theory? (And does that matter? Or have I wandered off the point of the reading?)

[Starlight]

Just thinking aloud, hoping I got this right.

 

"Thus appears The Point, which has "neither parts nor magnitude, but only position"."

 

The Point is the number 1, then, which has no meaning unless there is something to relate it to - and so we need a second point which becomes 2. And so the Line comes into being because points 1 and 2 can be connected.

 

And because we can't say anything about the line, we make another point, 3, and now we can say which points are nearer and further from one another.

 

"There has been no approach at all to the conception of a really existing thing. No more has been done than to make definitions, all in a purely ideal and imaginary world."

 

So then point 4 makes everything 3D, a solid. Until then, the triangle was still 2D. (Is that right?)

 

Point 5 introduces the idea of motion. The solid can move from where it is to some point else. And it also introduces Time, because movement takes time.

 

And then Crowley goes on to write that now there is consciousness because the point has Time (past, present, future), and so we have the number 6.

 

Question: Am I supposed to think of the Point 1 as having undergone a transformation? First it was alone, then it divided to make 2, then further divided to make 3, and so on?

 

I'm a bit lost with 7, 8 and 9, because I'm not familiar with the Hindu concepts he mentions. It seems to be that 7 (the Essence of Being) is the same as 1, or 4, depending on whether we're talking about Being in a theoretical or physical sense.

 

"These ideas of Being, Thought and Bliss constitute the minimum possible qualities which a Point must possess if it is to have a real sensible experience of itself."

 

I'm trying to understand what he's quoted from the Book of Auk and he says that things (that are now more than they were before Memory came to them with Fire - Light?) go on their journey forgetting with each incarnation because they know they cannot ever be changed from what they really are.

 

So, Being is 7, Thought (Memory?) is 8 and Bliss (the knowing it will never change?) is 9.

 

Have I understood this correctly?

 

(AND WOW. Just WOW.

 

And Coffee. ☕ )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Starlight

[fire cat pickles]

Sounds to me like Crowley is summarizing Pythagorean theory, like Barleywine mentions in his post. I have this book:

 

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Theology_of_Arithmetic.html?id=AFTXCMQrYBQC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

It is even more obtuse than Crowley, but it's the original source.

[Barleywine]

1 hour ago, Starlight said:

Just thinking aloud, hoping I got this right.

 

"Thus appears The Point, which has "neither parts nor magnitude, but only position"."

 

The Point is the number 1, then, which has no meaning unless there is something to relate it to - and so we need a second point which becomes 2. And so the Line comes into being because points 1 and 2 can be connected.

 

And because we can't say anything about the line, we make another point, 3, and now we can say which points are nearer and further from one another.

 

"There has been no approach at all to the conception of a really existing thing. No more has been done than to make definitions, all in a purely ideal and imaginary world."

 

So then point 4 makes everything 3D, a solid. Until then, the triangle was still 2D. (Is that right?)

 

Point 5 introduces the idea of motion. The solid can move from where it is to some point else. And it also introduces Time, because movement takes time.

 

And then Crowley goes on to write that now there is consciousness because the point has Time (past, present, future), and so we have the number 6.

 

Question: Am I supposed to think of the Point 1 as having undergone a transformation? First it was alone, then it divided to make 2, then further divided to make 3, and so on?

 

I'm a bit lost with 7, 8 and 9, because I'm not familiar with the Hindu concepts he mentions. It seems to be that 7 (the Essence of Being) is the same as 1, or 4, depending on whether we're talking about Being in a theoretical or physical sense.

 

"These ideas of Being, Thought and Bliss constitute the minimum possible qualities which a Point must possess if it is to have a real sensible experience of itself."

 

I'm trying to understand what he's quoted from the Book of Auk and he says that things (that are now more than they were before Memory came to them with Fire - Light?) go on their journey forgetting with each incarnation because they know they cannot ever be changed from what they really are.

 

So, Being is 7, Thought (Memory?) is 8 and Bliss (the knowing it will never change?) is 9.

 

Have I understood this correctly?

 

(AND WOW. Just WOW.

 

And Coffee. ☕ )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Starlight said:

Just thinking aloud, hoping I got this right.

 

"Thus appears The Point, which has "neither parts nor magnitude, but only position"."

 

The Point is the number 1, then, which has no meaning unless there is something to relate it to - and so we need a second point which becomes 2. And so the Line comes into being because points 1 and 2 can be connected.

 

And because we can't say anything about the line, we make another point, 3, and now we can say which points are nearer and further from one another.

 

"There has been no approach at all to the conception of a really existing thing. No more has been done than to make definitions, all in a purely ideal and imaginary world."

 

So then point 4 makes everything 3D, a solid. Until then, the triangle was still 2D. (Is that right?)

 

Point 5 introduces the idea of motion. The solid can move from where it is to some point else. And it also introduces Time, because movement takes time.

 

And then Crowley goes on to write that now there is consciousness because the point has Time (past, present, future), and so we have the number 6.

 

Question: Am I supposed to think of the Point 1 as having undergone a transformation? First it was alone, then it divided to make 2, then further divided to make 3, and so on?

 

I'm a bit lost with 7, 8 and 9, because I'm not familiar with the Hindu concepts he mentions. It seems to be that 7 (the Essence of Being) is the same as 1, or 4, depending on whether we're talking about Being in a theoretical or physical sense.

 

"These ideas of Being, Thought and Bliss constitute the minimum possible qualities which a Point must possess if it is to have a real sensible experience of itself."

 

I'm trying to understand what he's quoted from the Book of Auk and he says that things (that are now more than they were before Memory came to them with Fire - Light?) go on their journey forgetting with each incarnation because they know they cannot ever be changed from what they really are.

 

So, Being is 7, Thought (Memory?) is 8 and Bliss (the knowing it will never change?) is 9.

 

Have I understood this correctly?

 

(AND WOW. Just WOW.

 

And Coffee. ☕ )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've certainly grasped the essence of it. The Point is purely abstract and theoretical because it has no mass, no dimensions and no movement. Its a "still place" in the "Limitless Light" or aether that has become concentrated to form an Idea but no more. (My opinions, not Crowley's.) In tarot terms, the nature of the Idea is derived from the suit of the associated Ace, and represents the nascent impulse to "do something" of that nature but not actually starting it. The Line has length but no width or depth; the Point doesn't divide to obtain it, but instead acquires movement and direction, and thus extends or "extrudes" itself into a second pole (we might think of it as the "not-Self").  The Plane is 2D and comes about by postulating a third point to the side of the Line and somewhere between the two ends, and connecting the dots. Then, when contemplating the surface thus derived, we move in or out in space, perpendicular to the Plane, to position a fourth point that becomes the basis for a 3D geometric solid, ideally the Cube. The idea of "movement over time" in the Five is another abstract concept because it isn't tied directly to a geometric shape, but consider the idea of "revolving" the Cube in space to create more hypothetical points. Crowley often falls back on the Pentagram as his basis, but he has other esoteric reasons for doing so. The Six can be likened to the two tetrahedrons, one upright and the other inverse, that interpenetrate to form the Merkabah or six-pointed star expanded into three dimensions. I've seen the Merkabah described as the "vehicle of light" that allows access to the higher spiritual realms, which is probably why Crowley considered the sixth sephira to be the place where one encounters the "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel." In more prosaic terms, it's where the "above" meets the "below." The Seven is a departure from the harmony (but also the complacency) of the Six in search of new experiences, while the Eight attempts to make sense of what was discovered, often requiring an adjustment of one's previous assumptions. The Nine reconciles the two by bringing them back to center and synthesizing their input, while the Ten represents the exhaustion of the elemental energy through its utter encapsulation in Matter. The Nine represents the "perfection" of a suit and the Ten (because it has one foot in the next cycle and is on the verge of being superseded) is more like a postscript.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

11 minutes ago, fire cat pickles said:

Sounds to me like Crowley is summarizing Pythagorean theory, like Barleywine mentions in his post. I have this book:

 

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Theology_of_Arithmetic.html?id=AFTXCMQrYBQC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

It is even more obtuse than Crowley, but it's the original source.

Yes, Crowley follows Pythagoras up to a point, but then goes off into Vedic and Qabalistic assumptions. Both Iamblichus (The Theology of Arithmetic) and Thomas Taylor (Theoretic Arithmetic of the Pythagoreans) are worth reading. I tried to consolidate my understanding by reading Henry Cornelius Agrippa on numbers, but he gets way too theological for me with the higher numbers.

[TheFeeLion]

On 7/8/2019 at 2:55 AM, Starlight said:

Or am I describing Ain-Sof. And if so, what is the other type of Not-Just-Nothing?

@Barleywine  I thought Ain Soph was "Without Limit"? Or am I getting mixed up? Is this why you chose "Light" as your descriptor in your summary of the Naples Arrangement? Because it's a something without form but is a bit easier to wrap our head around among other things? 

 

Here's my understanding of the 0-10 thing (please correct me if I'm wrong) 

 

0 = limitless possibly but without form. Both everything and nothing. 

 

First set of three:

1 = the Point. Position. Something out of nothing/everything. Like when trying to triangulate you need a starting point. Still a lot of potential but now there is more form. 

2 = the Line. As yet no measure of length like the question 'how long is a piece of string?' Gives the Point more form but doesn't limit capabilities/possibilities

3 = the Surface or Plane. Gives more form and solidity to the previous two. 2D. Start to see that each number contains the ones before it plus some of its own extraness (??) 

 

*each time we come to a new number a new Point is added. Each new point give new form to the ones before. 

 

Second set of three:

4 = the Solid. Matter. Gives the previous Points depth and even more solidity. 3D.

5 = Motion. Time. The Solid now has a place in time as well as space. 

6 = Self-awareness. Now the Solid has an awareness of self as well as a position in time and space. Capable of experience. 

 

Third set of three:

7 = Being. The experience (?)

8 = Thought or Intellection. (I like @Starlight's Memory addition here) 

9 = Bliss. "the pleasure experienced by Being in the course of events". "One must explore the possibilities of imperfection on the part of Perfection in order to be conscious of those possibilities and enjoy them". 

 

10 = Reality/Knowledge

[TheFeeLion]

@Barleywine just read your reply to Starlight that definitely makes more sense than what I wrote!