Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: BRAShITh

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    187
    Ah. Yes, that is a genuine Qabballist, and not bound by the insularity of the Chasids etc.

    I should warn you, though, that the starting point metaphysically for Qabballists is that God created the world by speaking (Hebrew, of course), hence the switch-out of the Hebrew letters for Platonic numbers. This leads to the assumption that certain things are ontologically (or at least semantically) primitive which are... not. Kaplan was aware of the outsider perspective, which is why I tend to recommend him.

    If you want to get seriously into Qabballah, I would recommend studying at least the historical context and development of the Jewish sacred texts. There are layers of different approaches, all of which are both referenced to as cipher material and inform the thinking of the authors. For example, by the Roman period, there was an extensive and highly structured tradition of exegesis, and understanding it sheds a lot of light on how gematria was used didactively.
    Last edited by Bel Matina; 07-06-2012 at 05:09 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Bel Matina View Post
    This leads to the assumption that certain things are ontologically (or at least semantically) primitive which are... not.
    I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give an example?

    I don't see God as a creator, and the "speaking" isn't words coming "out of" God, but Aleph or ALHIM morphing and involving and evolving,
    God being both transcendant and immanent as Aleph-Bith, Aleph-Yod, Aleph-Tav...
    How's that sit with you, Bel Matina?
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give an example?
    A good one is that for all Qabballists is present the dogmatic trap that Hebrew is a perfect language and without flaw, the literal instrument of God's creation. This leads pretty much inevitably either to taking one's didactic conflations seriously as an article of faith or to pretending one does to the broader community. Suares looks good, but without reading more of his writing I can't in good faith vouch for him. I suspect you have the judgement to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    More broadly I was cautioning that many of the didactive tagmata of Qabballah are informed not only by the contents of Hebrew scripture but the historical forces that generated them. A little bit of background will do a lot of putting things into context.

    I don't see God as a creator, and the "speaking" isn't words coming "out of" God, but Aleph or ALHIM morphing and involving and evolving,
    God being both transcendant and immanent as Aleph-Bith, Aleph-Yod, Aleph-Tav...
    How's that sit with you, Bel Matina?
    Withholding comment on the gates, which challenge me to stretch my personal grasp of Qabballah, I completely agree with you. I don't personally carry the baggage of adherence to doctrine, though I did grow up hearing it and it's shaped my understanding of the root. For me, it affects less the structure of things than what I pay attention to. I have to assign new meaning to ideas like the word of God, the name of God, the Torah, mitzvos, etc.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,564
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bel Matina View Post
    the dogmatic trap that Hebrew is a perfect language and without flaw, the literal instrument of God's creation.
    Aramaic is more ancient than Hebrew, and much more 'magical', so to speak. Even a 'common' phrase in Aramaic sounds like some sort of spell

    (I had the chance to hear stuff written in Aramaic, and it had a strong effect on me, even if I couldn't understand the actual 'meaning' of the words.)

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Androgynus View Post
    Aramaic is more ancient than Hebrew, and much more 'magical', so to speak. Even a 'common' phrase in Aramaic sounds like some sort of spell
    Don't fall into a dogmatic trap yourself

    In fact, in both an objective and esoteric sense, no language is more ancient or magical than any other. Each language is born new every generation, and even within a generation will shape itself to the circumstances it comes in contact with. No matter what language you speak, what can't be spoken can't be spoken

    The tonality of language divorced from its meaning can communicate surprisingly much. I suspect what moved you had more to do with whoever rendered it for you and what the text meant to them than the circumstance of the language it was in. I find the mysticism of unknown languages very moving as well, though as a linguist I tend to then dive into the unknown language, destroying the mystery and replacing it with a gnosis that, and this is a very personal thing, I find more satisfying.

    I was tempted to flame here, since historical linguistics is an obsession of mine, and, historically speaking, the birth of Aramaic marks the death of Hebrew.

    I do find the way Hebrew is spoken in modern Israel pretty grating. It's more or less a fusion of the accents of all the languages people used to speak, with the main component being German, and after that French. It does away with all the symmetries of Tiberian phonology, and generally speaking makes me want to claw my ears off. Again, very personal

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,564
    Blog Entries
    1
    I was tempted to flame here, since historical linguistics is an obsession of mine, and, historically speaking, the birth of Aramaic marks the death of Hebrew.
    It appears that the earliest written records of both Hebrew and Aramaic are from around 1000 BCE.

    But you are the one admitting to have an obsession with historical linguistics, so I may have been linearly mistaken. If so, thanks for the correction.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I certainly feel that some languages are more 'magical' than others, and also that many languages have mutated over linear time from intuitive/archetypal towards more 'logical' and specified.

    I see it as a cycle thing. 'The Ages of Man', etc...

    I also sense how languages that are more archetypal/magical, can also be somehow 'better' at expressing 'what can't be spoken' (like pure principles and archetypes, for example).

    My own background is more shamanic/magical/musical/incantational rather than historic/linguistic/academic. So I may well see/hear things differently. This doesn't make it dogma IMO.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Are you aware of the concept of the 'Bird Language'? If yes, I'd be curious to hear your angle on it...
    _____________________________________________

    I was tempted to flame here
    And lead thyself not into temptation
    ----------------------------------------------

    Thanks for your input!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Bel Matina View Post
    A good one is that for all Qabballists is present the dogmatic trap that Hebrew is a perfect language and without flaw, the literal instrument of God's creation. This leads pretty much inevitably either to taking one's didactic conflations seriously as an article of faith or to pretending one does to the broader community. Suares looks good, but without reading more of his writing I can't in good faith vouch for him. I suspect you have the judgement to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    More broadly I was cautioning that many of the didactive tagmata of Qabballah are informed not only by the contents of Hebrew scripture but the historical forces that generated them. A little bit of background will do a lot of putting things into context.



    Withholding comment on the gates, which challenge me to stretch my personal grasp of Qabballah, I completely agree with you. I don't personally carry the baggage of adherence to doctrine, though I did grow up hearing it and it's shaped my understanding of the root. For me, it affects less the structure of things than what I pay attention to. I have to assign new meaning to ideas like the word of God, the name of God, the Torah, mitzvos, etc.
    Okay. I think we're pretty similar in these regards then.
    I'm not one to "believe" anything. I love Suares because reading him, or reading
    the Bible according to his cipher, opens up the universe to me. I take what I personally
    see "seriously" because it truly alters my perception and awareness, and i share it
    in case it benefits others. But I understand more now why alchemists wrote for other alchemists.
    It takes gold to make gold, etc. I hope that doesn't sound conceited. I don't know how much I know.
    I just know what I know. And alot of knowing happens through not-knowing, not-identifying.
    For me, seeing is a better word than knowing; perceiving directly - not a matter of the eyes.

    I especially resonate with "assign new meaning to ideas like..."
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    187
    Androgynus - Aramaic originated as the local west semitic dialect of the Syrian desert, and spread with populations deported across the Assyrian Empire. Consequently it became a koine in that empire and its successors, all the way up to the muslim conquest. It seems to have rapidly localized and replaced local semitic languages/dialects, absorbing much of their vocabulary. They were all close enough that you could look at it upside down, with the local languages adopting Aramaic accents and speech patterns, rather than being replaced. There's room to argue, but the good money is on Hebrew being dead for quite a while before the oldest extant manuscripts, passed down in liturgy like Latin. Some people even think that many books of the bible were originally written in Aramaic and back-translated to Hebrew.

    Languages, including the language of birds, tend to specialize on a topic of interest. Different languages make it easier to communicate accurately about different things - it's hard to beat the language of birds for talking about the Root, but picture light conversation about the weather with it! Unsurprisingly I have a lot more to say about the nature of language in this regard, but I'll have to start a new thread for it.

    Solomon -

    I do believe we are quite a bit more similar than different, in that regard.

    Every tradition has its own little language going. With Qabballah versus Alchemy, I only mean to warn you that you're liable to be tripped up by the familiarity of the topic. It's like hearing Yiddish knowing only normal German - you'll understand it, but they like to throw in a bunch of Hebrew everywhere to keep you on your toes.

    Fortunately, there's piles and piles of modern literature exploring who wrote the bible, what they meant, and how it was understood every step of the way. Since most of the context you need is the Talmud and the exegetic tradition it culminates (unfortunately mostly not included - the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the bulk of what survives of the earlier part) I recommend looking into it.

    Do enjoy!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,652
    Blog Entries
    5
    When you have to command a tiger, you have a whip and you speak GERMAN.

    Some say that french is so romantic ... language of love.

    Tonality AND the meaning plus glosolalia (inflexion of the voice, babies are very very sensitive to it, and generaly we don't speak to them with a normal soind voice, like when you say harshly "no !!" or or with interest "what ?", when you use irony, etc)

    Whatever the language we use some are then, more or less effective for the purpose we seek.

    Don't speak a demon with French if he is in his agressive mode ! Use german tonality instead ....

    Just my 2cts.
    Salazius

    http://dartigne.blogspot.com/

    My Works

    "I want to transmute everywhere" ~ The Spirit of Alchemy.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts