Speaker 1: You see you see something's going to happen.
Speaker 2: What what's gonna happen?
Speaker 1: I'll tak.
Speaker 2: What help.
Speaker 1: I'm welcome. It's been a big break, but now we
Speaker 1: are back. How you doing, Nick?
Speaker 2: What up?
Speaker 3: What's going on?
Speaker 2: How are you?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 2: It's good to be back.
Speaker 1: What's been happening?
Speaker 2: Any new things to promote? O't lee?
Speaker 3: Would I have come out this week? I actually I
Speaker 3: don't know. I don't even think I have anything scheduled
Speaker 3: much this week. Unfortunately I do have what's let me
Speaker 3: see what's dropping on YouTube? It might be played this week?
Speaker 3: Uh played at part one? I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, uh this weekend.
Speaker 3: I got the elect Oh you know what's coming out
Speaker 3: for the audio listeners, the elect Stork we did with library.
Speaker 2: Really, I'm told next week this Friday.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, this Friday, Plato Part one, The Philosopher and
Speaker 3: his Times. It's basically just kind of like his story
Speaker 3: and his travels, and then the second part will be
Speaker 3: a little bit on his on his works.
Speaker 2: But yeah, check that out.
Speaker 3: I got Plato pot one this week coming out, and
Speaker 3: guest wise, I don't think we have like anybody really
Speaker 3: coming on until uh yeah, I don't even have anything Friday, Oh, Saturday,
Speaker 3: I don't have another guest on until the second.
Speaker 1: Gotta get We got another mail bag coming out on Thursday.
Speaker 1: If you guys have any of those occult stories, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe all the ones that other people record are fake.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's what we're dealing with right now.
Speaker 3: I do think I think you should have some mail
Speaker 3: in there, because I think there was a few people
Speaker 3: that had hit me up and said they sent you
Speaker 3: shit since the last.
Speaker 2: Time we did it.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, so I do think there'll actually be something
Speaker 3: in there for you.
Speaker 2: No right there at the space Hell yeah. Interesting.
Speaker 1: So let's see. I wanted to start things off a
Speaker 1: little bit differently because where we where we ended up
Speaker 1: on the on the last time, it was talking about
Speaker 1: the magical nature of language, and Jimmy Corsetti is coming out.
Speaker 1: He's breaking news right here. He says that let me
Speaker 1: zoom in a little bit so you guys can see it.
Speaker 1: Massive discovery rewrites human history. The oldest form of writing
Speaker 1: has been found in a cave in Where, Germany, dating
Speaker 1: back thirty eight thousand years. This is well over thirty
Speaker 1: thousand years older than Sumerian quneiform from ancient Mesopotamia, which
Speaker 1: was long thought to be the oldest. Look at this stone, right,
Speaker 1: this is right, this is quneiform, right, and so the yeah,
Speaker 1: check it out. But they're talking about an older form
Speaker 1: of writing which is similar to Qunei form, and yeah.
Speaker 2: We could see it here.
Speaker 1: So this rewrites everything, right, And so what we got
Speaker 1: to understand about this is that this kind of stuff
Speaker 1: predating all of the rest of that stuff means that
Speaker 1: they had influence much older than anything going on in Samaria.
Speaker 1: And the Northern Crusades probably wiped out a lot of
Speaker 1: this stuff because they just went around raping, robbing, and
Speaker 1: pillaging all of these ancient quote unquote pagan sites, right,
Speaker 1: so they would destroy these gods and the groves up there,
Speaker 1: and they you know, ravaged the people. So we're sort
Speaker 1: of dealing with a collective amnesia from the time of
Speaker 1: you know, ancient times because everybody thought for the longest
Speaker 1: time the oldest stuff in the world was down in Samaria.
Speaker 1: But now we got cave writing from thirty eight thousand
Speaker 1: years ago up in Germany, like.
Speaker 2: This is.
Speaker 1: The Ice Age, right, this is this is unbelievable stuff.
Speaker 1: And h yeah, so get out those history books let's
Speaker 1: rewrite them as quickly as possible, so we don't have
Speaker 1: to go through this reset over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: You know, we've got to get that memory back. Let's
Speaker 1: see where are we at? If you guys are following.
Speaker 3: Along a brief essay upon the nature and significance of
Speaker 3: the magical alphabet.
Speaker 2: If you want to, I could start at all, since
Speaker 2: I'm Martie, run in my mouth, sure there, all right?
Speaker 3: The book seven seven seven has for its primary object
Speaker 3: the construction of a magical alphabet. One of the greatest
Speaker 3: difficulties experienced by the student, a difficulty which increases, rather
Speaker 3: than diminishes with his advance and knowledge, is this he
Speaker 3: finds it impossible to gain any clear idea of the
Speaker 3: meanings of the term which he employs. Every philosopher has
Speaker 3: his own meaning, even for such universally used terms as soul,
Speaker 3: and in most cases he does not so much as
Speaker 3: suspect that other writers use the term under a different connotation.
Speaker 3: Even technical writers and those who take the trouble to
Speaker 3: define their terms before using them, are too often at
Speaker 3: variance with each other. The diversity is very great. In
Speaker 3: the case of this world, this word soul, it is
Speaker 3: sometimes used to mean atman, an impersonal principle almost synonymous
Speaker 3: with the absolute itself, with the absolute itself, a word
Speaker 3: which has been defined with scores of different senses.
Speaker 2: Others use it.
Speaker 3: To mean the personal individual soul, as distinguished from the
Speaker 3: over soul or God. Others take it as an equivalent
Speaker 3: to Nishemah, the understanding, the intelligence, the intelligible essence of
Speaker 3: man his aspiration. Yet others mean the nephesh, the animal soul,
Speaker 3: the conscious, corresponding to the senses. It has even been
Speaker 3: identified with the ruak, which is really the mechanism of
Speaker 3: the mind. Apart from these major distinctions, there are literally
Speaker 3: hundreds of minor shades of meaning. We find, therefore a
Speaker 3: writer predictator predicating the soul, A, B, and c, which,
Speaker 3: as fellow students protest vehemently that it is none of
Speaker 3: these things, despite which the two men may be in
Speaker 3: substantial agreement.
Speaker 1: Well, can I stop you right there? So look at
Speaker 1: the nature of the word soul itself. It has the
Speaker 1: solar connotation, right, it's saying something about the sun, right
Speaker 1: just in the basic etymology of it.
Speaker 3: I mean, you're taking the word for the son and
Speaker 3: just throwing an extra letter in there.
Speaker 1: Right, same sound. And you know what's interesting is the
Speaker 1: soul the sun. There's something about the sun sign that
Speaker 1: gives us a piece of our personality. Right, So even
Speaker 1: in that context, there's like an astrological significance to it.
Speaker 1: Some sort of identity goes along with that personality which
Speaker 1: comes from the sun at birth.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good.
Speaker 3: Let us suppose for a moment that by some miracle
Speaker 3: we obtain a clear idea of the meaning of the word.
Speaker 3: The trouble has merely begun, for there immediately arises the
Speaker 3: question of the relations of one term to the others.
Speaker 3: There have been few attempts at constructing a coherent system,
Speaker 3: and those that are coherent are not comprehended. In view
Speaker 3: of this euro clidion eurocliton of misunderstanding, it is clearly
Speaker 3: necessary to establish a fundamental language. I saw this fact
Speaker 3: in my twenties. My extended travels throughout the world had
Speaker 3: brought me into contact with religious and philosophical thinkers of
Speaker 3: every shade of opinion, And the more I knew, the
Speaker 3: greater became the confusion. I understood with better approval the
Speaker 3: outbursts of the aged fit. If I had my life
Speaker 3: to live again. The first thing I would do would
Speaker 3: be to invent an entirely new system of symbols whereby
Speaker 3: to convey my ideas. As a matter of fact, certain people,
Speaker 3: notably Raymond Lully, have attempted this great work. I discussed
Speaker 3: this question with Biku Anada Mattea Alan Bennett in nineteen
Speaker 3: oh four. He professed himself completely satisfied with the Buddhist terminology.
Speaker 3: I cannot concur with this opinion. Firstly, the actual words
Speaker 3: are barbarously long, and possibly so for the average European. Secondly,
Speaker 3: an understanding of the system depends on complete acquiescence in
Speaker 3: the Buddhist doctrines. Thirdly, meaning of the terms is not,
Speaker 3: as my venerable colleague maintained, as clear and comprehensive as
Speaker 3: could be wished. There is much pedantry, much confusion, and
Speaker 3: much disputed matter. Fourthly, the terminology is exclusively psychological. It
Speaker 3: takes no account of extra Buddhistic ideas, and it bears
Speaker 3: little relation to the general order of the universe. It
Speaker 3: might be supplemented by Hindu terminology, but to do that
Speaker 3: would immediately introduce elements of controversy. We should at once
Speaker 3: be lost in endless discussions as to whether Nevana was
Speaker 3: nirvana or not, and so on forever. The system of
Speaker 3: the Kabbalah is superficially open to this last objection, but
Speaker 3: its real basis is perfectly sound. We can easily discard
Speaker 3: the dogmatic interpretation of the rabbis.
Speaker 2: Of the rabbins.
Speaker 3: We can refer everything in the universe to the system
Speaker 3: of pureys number, whose symbols will be intelligible to all
Speaker 3: rational minds in an identical sense, and the relations between
Speaker 3: these symbols are fixed by nature. There is no particular
Speaker 3: point for most ordinary purposes in discussing whether forty nine
Speaker 3: is or is not the square of seven. Such was
Speaker 3: the nature of the kind of the considerations that led
Speaker 3: me to adopt the tree of life as the basis
Speaker 3: of the magical alphabet. The number ten, the ten numbers,
Speaker 3: and the twenty two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, with
Speaker 3: their traditional and rational correspondences, taking into consideration their numerical
Speaker 3: and geometrical into relations, afford us a coherent systematic groundwork,
Speaker 3: sufficiently rigid for our foundation and sufficiently elastic for a superstructure.
Speaker 1: How can you dig it? Yeah, yeah, you go okay,
Speaker 1: But we must not suppose that we know anything of
Speaker 1: the tree a priori. We must not work towards any
Speaker 1: other type of central truth than the nature of these
Speaker 1: symbols in themselves. The object of our work must be,
Speaker 1: in fact, to discover the nature and powers of each symbol.
Speaker 1: We must clothe the mathematical nakedness of each prime idea
Speaker 1: in the multicolored garment of correspondences with every department of thought.
Speaker 1: That's the real work right there. So he's really drawn
Speaker 1: it down to the correspondences are what's important.
Speaker 2: So you can actually see what the numbers mean.
Speaker 1: A first task is to consider what we are to
Speaker 1: mean by the word number. I have dealt with this
Speaker 1: in my own commentary to verse four, chapter one of
Speaker 1: the Book of the Law. Every number is infinite. There
Speaker 1: is no difference. See what is a number or a symbol?
Speaker 1: Page one seven. The student should be should go very
Speaker 1: thoroughly into the question of transfinite number. Let him consult
Speaker 1: the Introduction to mathematical Philosophy of the honorable Bertrand Russell
Speaker 1: in a relevant but critical spirit. Bertrand Russell, also a mathematician,
Speaker 1: in particular the light of the light of my note
Speaker 1: on number, the whole conception of the olive zero should
Speaker 1: give him a fairly clear idea of the essential paradoxes
Speaker 1: of the magical interpretation of the idea of number, and
Speaker 1: especially the equation zero equals too, which I have devised
Speaker 1: to explain the universe and to harmonize with the antinomies
Speaker 1: which it presents at every turn. Our present state of
Speaker 1: understanding is far from perfect. It is evidently impossible to
Speaker 1: obtain a clear notion of each of the primes or
Speaker 1: primes if only because of their number is olive zero zero.
Speaker 1: The numbers zero to ten, as forming the basis of
Speaker 1: the decimal system, may be considered a microcosm of olive zero,
Speaker 1: for they are endless tens, representing the return to unity
Speaker 1: by the reintroduction of zero to continue the series in
Speaker 1: a matter progressively complex, each term representing not only itself
Speaker 1: in its relationship, in its relation to the neighbors, but
Speaker 1: the combination of two or more numbers of the first
Speaker 1: decad That is, until we reach the numbers whose factors
Speaker 1: are all except in unity greater than ten, such as one, four, three,
Speaker 1: eleven times thirteen equals eleven times thirteen. But this is
Speaker 1: necessary to consider such numbers as all together beyond the
Speaker 1: first decad is only apparent, each prime being itself in
Speaker 1: elaboration in some senses, or another of one or more
Speaker 1: of the original zero to ten series. This at least
Speaker 1: may be regarded as conventionally true for immediate purpose of study.
Speaker 1: This is why in numerology they always do the condensation
Speaker 1: back to one through ten. A number such as three
Speaker 1: two nine nine times three three oh seven times three
Speaker 1: three one nine may be regarded as a distant and
Speaker 1: not very important group of fixed stars. Thus thirteen is
Speaker 1: a middle modulus, and one one one the great modulus
Speaker 1: modulus of unity. That is, the multiples of thirteen and
Speaker 1: one one one explain the coefficients of their scales in
Speaker 1: terms of a much more specialized idea.
Speaker 2: Eg.
Speaker 1: Twenty six equals two times thirteen represent it's the diad
Speaker 1: in a more specially concocted, connotated sense than two does eight.
Speaker 1: Eight describes the function of eight in terms of the
Speaker 1: full meaning of one one one, which is itself an
Speaker 1: elaborate account of the nature of unity, including for instance,
Speaker 1: the dogmatic mystery of the equation three equals one.
Speaker 2: Are you following that.
Speaker 1: He's going by binary.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was listening. We got stuck with the eight
Speaker 3: eight eight the one, because I do that find that
Speaker 3: interesting with the how he says the eighty eight describes
Speaker 3: the function of eight in terms of the full meaning
Speaker 3: one eleven. I've seen eight eight eight a bunch of times,
Speaker 3: and I did think kabalistically it like it's telling a
Speaker 3: full story instead of just part of one.
Speaker 1: So is that the meaning of eight eight eight to
Speaker 1: you is like telling the full story?
Speaker 3: Well, it's kind of like the whole Like I think,
Speaker 3: kind of like the Magician, how you know, the eight
Speaker 3: does go you know, infinity. I think that's like kind
Speaker 3: of like might even show like the hero's journey, because
Speaker 3: like you're gonna return back where you started kind of
Speaker 3: in a sense. So yeah, it's just because I, again
Speaker 3: with seven seven, said just looking.
Speaker 2: At doubles and multiples of numbers.
Speaker 3: Just for some reason, I felt that eighty eight eight
Speaker 3: was more of a I guess kind of how he's saying,
Speaker 3: and more of a defines something better than the other
Speaker 3: eight than eighty eight, you.
Speaker 2: Know what I'm saying. Right, It's hard to explain how
Speaker 2: I even thought that. It's just something that came to mind.
Speaker 1: Honestly, Well, this is what he said in the three
Speaker 1: equals one, So you know, the eight eight eight would
Speaker 1: be the completion because three equals the one in unity.
Speaker 1: He's going back to the trinity idea, right, so the
Speaker 1: three equals one. I mean again, this is a much
Speaker 1: more inclusive and expansive definition of the trinity in terms
Speaker 1: of mathematics than what you get with you know, Tertullian
Speaker 1: or whatever. But what they're basically saying is that the
Speaker 1: divine unity comes from the three or the most structurally sound,
Speaker 1: least least I guess, wobbly of the numbers itself. So
Speaker 1: the the you know, the triangle would be the strongest shape, right,
Speaker 1: that would be the biggest the least numbers to create
Speaker 1: the most unity, I guess right. By repercussion again, each
Speaker 1: larger correlative of any number of zero to ten expresses
Speaker 1: an extended idea of that number, which must immediately be
Speaker 1: included in the fundamental conception thereof. For instance, having discovered
Speaker 1: that one twenty can be divided by five, we must
Speaker 1: henceforth think of five as the root of those ideas
Speaker 1: which we find in one twenty. As well as using
Speaker 1: our previous ideas of five as the key to our
Speaker 1: investigation of one twenty. On the surface, it would appear
Speaker 1: that this mode of working could only lead to baffling
Speaker 1: contradictions and inextricable confusion. But to the mind naturally lucid
Speaker 1: and well trained to discrimination of this misfortunate of this
Speaker 1: misfortune does not occur for the meeting of the primes
Speaker 1: eleven to ninety seven see page twenty five.
Speaker 2: Do you want me to go? Give your work? Sure?
Speaker 3: On the contrary, practice which makes perfect enables one to
Speaker 3: grasp intelligently, in class coherently a far vester conjuries of
Speaker 3: facts than could possibly be assimilated by the most laborious
Speaker 3: feats of memorizing. Herbert Spencer has well explained this psychology
Speaker 3: of apprehension. The excellence of any mind considered merely as
Speaker 3: a storehouse of information may be gauged by its faculty
Speaker 3: of representing any required facts to itself by systematic classification
Speaker 3: into groups and subgroups. This presence, this present attempt at
Speaker 3: a magical alphabet, is in fact a projection both intensive
Speaker 3: and extensive, of this system to affinity. On the one hand,
Speaker 3: all possible ideas are referred by progressive integrations to the
Speaker 3: pure numbers zero to ten, and thence to two, one
Speaker 3: and zero. On the other the connotations of zero, one
Speaker 3: and two are extended by progressive definitions to include every
Speaker 3: conceivable idea on every plane of the universe. We are
Speaker 3: now in a position to consider the practical application of
Speaker 3: these ideas as regards the as regards the numbers zero
Speaker 3: to ten of the key scale, each one is a
Speaker 3: fundamental idea of a positive entity. Its nature is defined
Speaker 3: by the correspondences assigned to it in the various columns.
Speaker 2: Thus we may say that God, Hanumann, the.
Speaker 3: Jackal, the opal storax, truthfulness, and so on, or all
Speaker 3: qualities inherent in the idea called eight. With regards to
Speaker 3: the numbers eleven to thirty two of the key scale, they.
Speaker 2: Are not numbers at all in our senses of the word.
Speaker 3: They have been arbitrarily assigned to the twenty two parts
Speaker 3: by the compiler of the sepher Jetsa. There is not
Speaker 3: even any kind of harmony. Nothing could be much further
Speaker 3: from the idea of twenty nine than the sign of pisces.
Speaker 3: The basic idea had better be considered the letter of
Speaker 3: the Hebrew alphabet, and the correspondence of each with fairly
Speaker 3: comprehensive definitions, such as the taro trumps is very close
Speaker 3: and necessary. It will be noticed that certain alphabets, especially
Speaker 3: the coptic, have more than twenty two letters. These additional
Speaker 3: symbols fill up the fill up the tree of life
Speaker 3: when attributed to the sephiroth. The numerical value of the
Speaker 3: letters does, however, represent a real and important relation. But
Speaker 3: these numbers are not quite the same as the original
Speaker 3: sepharotic numbers. For instance, although Beth equals two equals mercury,
Speaker 3: and mercury is part of the idea of Chokma equals two,
Speaker 3: the one two is not identical with the other. For
Speaker 3: mercury in itself is not a sepherer. It is not
Speaker 3: a positive emanation in necessary sequence in this scale. Zero
Speaker 3: two ten for Beth is the path which joins Catherine,
Speaker 3: Banah one and three. Zion equal seven is the path
Speaker 3: joining Binah three and Tephareth six. That is, they are
Speaker 3: not numbers in themselves, but expressions of relations between numbers
Speaker 3: according to a predetermined geometrical pattern.
Speaker 1: See that's the important part. So what he's saying right here, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's all collapsed into the tree itself. Right, The zero
Speaker 1: through ten in the tree is collapsing all numbers into itself.
Speaker 1: So he's saying that all of these are, you know,
Speaker 1: either positive or negative attributions of those same spheres, but
Speaker 1: they're not the spheres in themselves. That's what I'm getting
Speaker 1: from it.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Another class of number is an of immense importance. It
Speaker 3: is the series usually expressed in Roman numerals, which is
Speaker 3: printed on the tarot trumps here were two exceptions. The
Speaker 3: number is invariably one less than that of the letters
Speaker 3: of the alphabet, where they are numbered according to their
Speaker 3: natural order, from one to twenty two. Thus, Gammel the
Speaker 3: third letter pertains to trump two mem the thirteenth letter
Speaker 3: two number twelve. These numbers are very nearly of the
Speaker 3: same orderive idea as those of the numerical value of
Speaker 3: the letters. But they represent but they represent rather the
Speaker 3: active magical energy of the number than its essential being
Speaker 3: the return to the pure sepharoth. The numbers zero, one, two, three, five,
Speaker 3: and seven are primes. The other combinations of these primes.
Speaker 3: That's right here we have already here, we have already
Speaker 3: the principle of the equilibrium between the simple and the complex.
Speaker 3: At the same time, there there is an inherent virtue
Speaker 3: in these compound numbers as such, which makes it improper
Speaker 3: to think of them as merely combinations from their mathematical elements.
Speaker 3: Six is an idea in itself, a ding as sich,
Speaker 3: a ding as sich. The fact that six equals two
Speaker 3: times three is only one of its properties. Similar remarks
Speaker 3: apply to numbers above ten, But here the importance of
Speaker 3: the of the primes, as compared to that of the
Speaker 3: compound numbers, is much greater. Few compound numbers appear, in
Speaker 3: the present state of our knowledge in themselves as distinguished
Speaker 3: from the value of their mathematical elements. We may now, however,
Speaker 3: in since we may, we may, however instance ninety three, one, eleven, one, two, ten,
Speaker 3: four eighteen, and six hundred and sixty six.
Speaker 1: I gotta stop you there. So the way they compiled
Speaker 1: this book is completely wrong. This should have been the
Speaker 1: first chapter, because this is elaborating on a lot of
Speaker 1: the stuff that he was talking about earlier that didn't
Speaker 1: make any sense without it.
Speaker 2: Especially I remember the four eighteen and the sixty sixty
Speaker 2: six right exactly.
Speaker 3: But every prime is the expression of a quite definite
Speaker 3: idea for instance, nineteen is the general feminine glyph. Thirty
Speaker 3: one the highest feminine trinity, a great modulus of zero.
Speaker 3: Forty one is the aspect of the feminine as a
Speaker 3: vampire force who.
Speaker 2: Forty seven as dynamic and spasmodic, because it would be trump.
Speaker 2: Fifty three is heterogeneous.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's perfect right there, Like this is we
Speaker 1: shouldn't gloss this over.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fifteen is where we're at. Yeah, that's where we're at.
Speaker 3: Fifty nine is claiming its completement, and so on. Each
Speaker 3: prime number retains its peculiar significance in multiples. In its multiples.
Speaker 2: Thus, the number.
Speaker 3: Twenty three, a glyph of life, exhibits the life of
Speaker 3: the diad in forty six, and so on. The significance
Speaker 3: of the prime has been carefully worked out with fair
Speaker 3: accuracy in each case up to ninety seven. Above one hundred,
Speaker 3: only a few primes have been thoroughly investigated. This is because,
Speaker 3: by our present methods, such numbers can only be studied
Speaker 3: through their multiples. That is to say, if we wish
Speaker 3: to determine the nature of the number seventeen, we shall
Speaker 3: examine the series thirty four, fifty one, sixty eight, and
Speaker 3: so on to see what words and ideas correspond to them,
Speaker 3: we shall establish a ratio fifty one fifty one thirty
Speaker 3: four equals three two. From our knowledge of three and two,
Speaker 3: we can compare the effect produced upon them by the
Speaker 3: modulus seventeen. For instance, eighty two is the number of
Speaker 3: the angel of Venus. It means a thing beloved. One
Speaker 3: twenty three means war, a plague, pleasure violation, and one
Speaker 3: sixty four has the idea of cleaving, also of also
Speaker 3: of profane as opposed to sacred. The common element in
Speaker 3: these ideas is a dangerous fascination.
Speaker 2: Oh shit, Nasi.
Speaker 3: Whence once we say that forty one the highest common
Speaker 3: factor is the vampire.
Speaker 1: Well, so is it thirty one or forty one? Oh
Speaker 1: she said that earlier?
Speaker 3: Yeah right, I thought forty one was the female. Let
Speaker 3: me see, forty one is the aspect of the feminine
Speaker 3: as a vampire for us. And then he's saying, once
Speaker 3: we say that forty one the highest common factor is
Speaker 3: the vampire. Interesting, Yeah, it was the same. But the
Speaker 3: above considerations, which we would extend the letters of the
Speaker 3: magical alphabet to an infinity of symbols, are not properly
Speaker 3: pertinent to this essay. Our main object is convenience in
Speaker 3: communicating ideas, and this would be violated.
Speaker 2: If we aim too high.
Speaker 3: We can attain all our objectives for practical purposes by
Speaker 3: confining ourselves to the traditionally accepted scale of thirty two
Speaker 3: paths of ten numbers and twenty two letters. The only
Speaker 3: extension necessary is the inclusion of the three veils of
Speaker 3: the negative, a matter of fundamental importance in the apothectic
Speaker 3: structure of the tree given in the structure in the
Speaker 3: structural diagram. These veils are useful in only a few
Speaker 3: very positive lists. The numbers thirty one and thirty two
Speaker 3: must be duplicated because the letters chin possesses two very
Speaker 3: distinct branches of idea, one connected with the element of
Speaker 3: fire and the other with that of spirit. Also, the
Speaker 3: letter tau is referred both to the planet Saturn and
Speaker 3: the element Earth. This is a great defect in the
Speaker 3: scheme theoretically, but the traditional attributions are so numerous and
Speaker 3: well defined that no remedy seems feasible. In practice, no
Speaker 3: serious trouble of any kind is caused by the theoretical confusion.
Speaker 2: Ticket There's one last paragraph, Yeah, go for it.
Speaker 1: Okay, I didn't know. So one further difficulty has arisen
Speaker 1: owing to the discovery of the planets Neptune and Uranus.
Speaker 1: We have, however, tried He doesn't even mention Pluto because
Speaker 1: it wasn't discovered by the time he wrote this. But
Speaker 1: we have, however, tried to turn this into an advantage
Speaker 1: by including them with premium mobile a in a sephardic
Speaker 1: arrangement of the planets, and the device has justified itself
Speaker 1: by enabling us to construct a perfectly symmetrical attributions for
Speaker 1: the rulings and exaltations of the signs of the zodiac.
Speaker 1: For the rest, it need only be said that in
Speaker 1: the case of most lines of study, the key to
Speaker 1: success is the familiarity conferred by daily practice. So he's
Speaker 1: saying that the more you get into this stuff, the
Speaker 1: easier it is to new information or new you know,
Speaker 1: nodes of thought into the system, which I guess is
Speaker 1: an easy cope. Right now, we're onto the meaning of
Speaker 1: the primes. Yeah, we're right at thirty. Do you want
Speaker 1: to pick that up next time?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's yeah, I figure, yeah exactly, that'll work out good.
Speaker 2: And what's after that?
Speaker 3: After that we might actually be getting into the fucking
Speaker 3: shit finally, right, yes, holy crap, finally Yeah, after that one,
Speaker 3: we'll get into the table of correspondences.
Speaker 2: Nice, very cool.
Speaker 1: All right, so we are on page ninety one.
Speaker 2: Nice, it's funny, and it ends on ninety three. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's why they constructed it in this way. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, they could reorder it, yeah, but I mean
Speaker 1: that section right there kind of explains a lot of
Speaker 1: what he was going into in the previous chapters, and
Speaker 1: it's not until after you get through all that stuff
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense. But this is kind of what we
Speaker 1: were talking about on the previous episodes, where we were
Speaker 1: talking about Crowley and his and his tarot is and
Speaker 1: his kabala is that you really have to get through it,
Speaker 1: all of this, you know, kind of it seems like
Speaker 1: junk up front to then relate back to the thing
Speaker 1: and then understand that these are like gems of wisdom
Speaker 1: that he's trying to get through to you. But he has,
Speaker 1: you know, autism to such a degree that makes it
Speaker 1: really hard to follow.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I'll even say again, I mean there's
Speaker 3: I mean, there's ship that I've seen that's proof enough
Speaker 3: to me that this guy wrote in ciphers. So I'm
Speaker 3: assuming this Jamatri that he talks about, he's used himself
Speaker 3: in his own work, so I mean.
Speaker 1: Something absolutely.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: But you know it's it's not for the Week of Heart.
Speaker 1: That's why we chose this book.
Speaker 2: Yeah, recover it.
Speaker 1: You know, this is like advanced advance at shit. So
Speaker 1: he's writing this after he's studying this for decades, and
Speaker 1: so it seems like he's schizophrenically throwing in all these
Speaker 1: different references, but they do make sense when you dig
Speaker 1: into the material. Do you just have the time and
Speaker 1: energy to dig into the material? That's that's the real question,
Speaker 1: you know. All right, well, this is a great episode.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys for joining us again.
Speaker 2: Mail the story oh right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah yeah. If you got any of those occult experiences,
Speaker 1: any of those esoteric experiences, if you've been in a
Speaker 1: lodge and you want to explain those experiences as well,
Speaker 1: those would be great. Just email them to Headless Giant
Speaker 1: Podcasts at gmail dot com and we will read those
Speaker 1: on Thursday, along with bringing you these new symbols that
Speaker 1: we're coming up with. And you know, there's lots of
Speaker 1: really cool, exciting discoveries being made right now if you're
Speaker 1: paying attention to it.
Speaker 2: So some of the emails and.
Speaker 1: Things going on, right we got to get away from
Speaker 1: their going because you know, all of this stuff about
Speaker 1: Mephelum and demons and aliens, it's all there to distract you,
Speaker 1: and we've seen it being done over and over and
Speaker 1: over again, and they're not covering anything as substance. You
Speaker 1: got to get into the really meaty stuff for there
Speaker 1: to actually be stuff there. You know, speculation is fun,
Speaker 1: but it's not really going to advance us anywhere in
Speaker 1: terms of knowledge or experience or any of that stuff.
Speaker 1: So we got to get around it. And I think
Speaker 1: that's what we do here. You know, we're trying to
Speaker 1: give you stuff that you can actually dig into and
Speaker 1: understand on a different level, so you know, expand your vision.
Speaker 1: Oh and guys, if you have it yet, go back
Speaker 1: and look at our Auras episode from yesterday. It was
Speaker 1: a great time.
Speaker 2: Fun.
Speaker 3: That was really good. Actually, that was a good time. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that was a good show. Yeah, definitely check out out.
Speaker 1: You say it all the time. Understanding vision is like
Speaker 1: understanding the universe. You know, it's that's right there.
Speaker 3: Yoah, The idea for sure, for sure, I definitely think
Speaker 3: there's something up with again, Like I even you know,
Speaker 3: the occult symbolism that to use on a lot of animals.
Speaker 3: We all have different eyesight than us, Like I do
Speaker 3: think that some of them are just because of that reason.
Speaker 3: I mean, even look at the time where we were
Speaker 3: talking about the scorpion, we didn't know the whole fucking
Speaker 3: show was a DNA.
Speaker 2: What the fuck is that?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Fucking weird, right, And you know, maybe Crowley knew about
Speaker 1: this stuff and he kind of encodes it in his
Speaker 1: work because you know, all this number relates to the eyes,
Speaker 1: all of this. You know, he talks about the vision
Speaker 1: and the voice where he's got you know, these horrendous
Speaker 1: demons and stuff attacking him. Or is he talking about
Speaker 1: his perceptions? You know, is he talking about the way
Speaker 1: his ego gets in the way of this stuff? So
Speaker 1: these are all possibilities.
Speaker 2: Too, you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's well said, so well said on that one.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll see you next time. Thank you for joining
Speaker 1: us Later