Tzaddi and Heh swap (split from "Is it really a Pelican")
kwaw
Seems an awful lot of twisting going on to make this work!
Where is the simplicity of 'zero goes where it always has, at the beginning'?
And a solution in transposition seems to be denied by the Book of the Law itself (re: all the letters are aright. . .)
Perhaps your statement about not giving any one sequence precedence is along the right lines, replacing 'sequence' with 'star'. After all there are a number of stars on the card, and this Aeon is about every man and every woman being a star, not the 'one' advent star of Christ; ergo tzaddi (the fish-hook = fisherman = christ?) = The Stars (or, I.S.I.S?) not The Star
I quite like Achad's solution - tzaddi is the star named Not (= Nuit) :
22. Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him by a secret name which I will give him when at last he knoweth me. Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also thus. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.
kwaw
Perhaps your denial of giving any one sequence precedence is along the right lines, replacing 'sequence' with 'star'. After all there are a number of stars on the card, and this Aeon is about every man and every woman being a star, not the 'one' advent star of Christ; ergo tzaddi (the fish-hook = fisherman = christ?) = The Stars (or, I.S.I.S?) not The Star
Re; if ISIS (Infinite Space and the Infinite Stars) - then perhaps it is still The Star, id est, The Dog Star (not the advent of Christ, but of the river's flooding). The association of the card with Isis goes back to at least Gebelin of course:
The Lady who is below, & extremely attentive in this moment to pour out the water of her vases, is the Queen of Heaven, Isis, to whose benevolence was attributed the flooding of the Nile, which starts with the rising of the Dog Star; thus by its rising the inundation was advertised. For this reason the Dog Star was dedicated to Isis, as her symbol par excellence.
And in a different essay in the same volume, Mellet even attributed this card to Heh and the Emperor to Tzaddi . . . perhaps Crowley's transposition (if we grant it is other than just another Crowley prank) is not so much a blind as a clue, look to Gebelin/Mellet, the key to the answer is there!"*
kwaw
* or perhaps to Achad (tzaddi is Not, the Star), who also liked to turn things upside down
RLG
Dwtw
I'm with Kwaw on this one. Applying the Law of Parsimony to the conundrum of Liber AL I:57, the simplest solution is that the name of the card must be changed. Tzaddi is not 'the Star', but is another name. Maybe this is NOT, or Stars, or Galaxy, or even Earth. Doing so allows all the letters to be 'aright'. I have a solution along these lines, but it would be too unwieldy to reproduce in this forum. The key, though, would be to justify the correct name, in terms of how it fits in with the Tree of Life and the overall trump sequence and the meaning thereof.
But I'm pretty sure the new name is not 'The Pelican'
Litlluw
RLG
I'm with Kwaw on this one. Applying the Law of Parsimony to the conundrum of Liber AL I:57, the simplest solution is that the name of the card must be changed. Tzaddi is not 'the Star', but is another name. Maybe this is NOT, or Stars, or Galaxy, or even Earth. Doing so allows all the letters to be 'aright'. I have a solution along these lines, but it would be too unwieldy to reproduce in this forum. The key, though, would be to justify the correct name, in terms of how it fits in with the Tree of Life and the overall trump sequence and the meaning thereof.
But I'm pretty sure the new name is not 'The Pelican'
Litlluw
RLG
Ross G Caldwell
If you believe that 1:57 presents a problem to be solved, there is a dogmatic problem in not accepting Crowley's solution.
That is, if you hold that AL is an authoritative message from the Secret Chiefs, through the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of Crowley, and if therefore as 1:57 states there is a misattribution or some other mistake in the Cipher Document, then you must also accept that "my Prophet shall reveal it to the wise."
Therefore, if Crowley's solution was wrong, then he was not the Prophet being referred to, and it follows that, if kwaw or RLG are presenting alternate solutions to a problem they believe is real, they are implicitly claiming to be the Prophet referred to in the verse.
Nothing wrong with that, of course. But if I believed that, I'd trumpet it a bit more!
That is, if you hold that AL is an authoritative message from the Secret Chiefs, through the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of Crowley, and if therefore as 1:57 states there is a misattribution or some other mistake in the Cipher Document, then you must also accept that "my Prophet shall reveal it to the wise."
Therefore, if Crowley's solution was wrong, then he was not the Prophet being referred to, and it follows that, if kwaw or RLG are presenting alternate solutions to a problem they believe is real, they are implicitly claiming to be the Prophet referred to in the verse.
Nothing wrong with that, of course. But if I believed that, I'd trumpet it a bit more!
Ross G Caldwell
... Of course, if you do not believe that the Book is authoritative in the sense it and its Prophet claimed, then there is no problem to be solved in any case.
Aeon418
That particular trumpet has been blown. RLG has already claimed prophet-hood in the thread discussing Jim Eshelman's, Liber Theta. Of course there was an element of tongue-in-cheek humour involved. But even if the mantle was only claimed in the personal/subjective sense that still puts any proposed solution in a different category to the one offered by Crowley himself. 
kwaw
Well, I am no prophet, but I am not among the wise ones Crowley has revealed the secret too either, his double loop nonsense and contrary statements in the BoT just leaves me befuddled !
I bow down to ye mighty wise ones, but I fear the only transposition going on between this emperor and the star-lady has less to do with letters and more to do with clothes. . .
Kwaw
Re; Achad's solution that Tzaddi is Not the Star suggests not just (or even?) a change of name but a change of focus in that the primary subject is no longer the Star, but Our Lady of the Stars (not, nuit or isis - infinite space and the infinite stars thereof).
(The association with 'Our Lady' has been made with that other Queen of Heaven the Virgin Mary too, as Stella Maris, the guiding Star of the Sea).
I bow down to ye mighty wise ones, but I fear the only transposition going on between this emperor and the star-lady has less to do with letters and more to do with clothes. . .
Kwaw
Re; Achad's solution that Tzaddi is Not the Star suggests not just (or even?) a change of name but a change of focus in that the primary subject is no longer the Star, but Our Lady of the Stars (not, nuit or isis - infinite space and the infinite stars thereof).
(The association with 'Our Lady' has been made with that other Queen of Heaven the Virgin Mary too, as Stella Maris, the guiding Star of the Sea).
RLG
Dwtw
For the most part, my posts in this thread have been aimed at pointing out what I consider the fallacious argument known as the 'double loop', as opposed to offering what I consider a definitive solution.
Here's the quote from TBOT:
"Frater Perdurabo had made a very profound study of the Tarot since his initiation to the Order on 18th November, 1898; for, three months later, he had attained the grade of Practicus; as such, he became entitled to know the Secret Attribution. He constantly studied this and the accompanying explanatory manuscripts. He checked up on all these attributes of the numbers to the forms of nature, and found nothing incongruous. But when (8th April, 1904 e.v.) he was writing down the Book of the Law from the dictation of the messenger of the Secret Chiefs, he seems to have put a mental question, suggested by the words in Chapter I, verse 57: "the law of the Fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God" ("The House of God" is one name of the Tarot Trump numbered XVI) to this effect: "Have I got these attributions right?" For there came an interpolated answer, "All these old letters of my book are aright; but x is not the Star. This also is secret; my prophet shall reveal it to the wise". This was exceedingly annoying. If Tzaddi was not "the Star", what was? And what was Tzaddi? He tried for years to counter-change this card, "The Star", which is numbered XVII, with some other. He had no success. It was many years later that the solution came to him. Tzaddi is "The Emperor"; and therefore the positions of XVII and IV must be counterchanged. This attribution is very satisfactory. Yes, but it is something a great deal more than satisfactory; it is, to clear thought, the most convincing evidence possible that the Book of the Law is a genuine message from the Secret Chiefs. For "The Star" is referred to Aquarius in the Zodiac, and "The Emperor" to Aries. Now Aries and Aquarius are on each side of Pisces, just as Leo and Libra are on each side of Virgo; that is to say, the correction in the Book of the Law gives a perfect symmetry in the zodiacal attribution, just as if a loop were formed at one end of the ellipse to correspond exactly with the existing loop at the other end. "
AC specifically says in this text that 'the positions of XVII and IV must be counterchanged'. This obviously didn't happen. The cards were not moved out of sequence as they were in the RWS tarot according to the GD document.
He then goes on to say that the Star is Aquarius and the Emperor is Aries (at least he kept this straight), and that they are on each side of Pisces, therefore the 'correction' in Liber AL creates a loop that 'corresponds exactly' with the existing loop. But no such thing has happened. The sequence of the zodiac signs on the Thoth deck are NOT switched in this case.
Another question is why it would take years to figure out how to 'counterchange this card', i.e. the Star, with some other. Hmmm.. I could go through the 21 possibilities pretty quickly. Star for Fool? No. Star for Magus? No...etc but more importantly he is also saying in this sentence that he wanted to counterchange cards, not letters.
As for Ross' assertion about prophecy and all that, I can't say that I entirely agree. There were many injunctions n the Law that AC simply did not follow through on. So I'm not sure that AC did 'reveal this to the wise' directly, through his solution. I'm also not sure that if we accept one statement in the Law, we have to accept them all. But I do get the point that if one is accepting the Law as a revelation, then it is only fair to play the game thoroughly and say that all of it is a revelation, whether we agree with the terms or not.
Nevertheless, it becomes tricky when faced with a passage such as this. If I say that AC did not fulfill his role as prophet, but I in fact know the correct solution, does that make me a Prophet? I suppose on one reading of the text it does. But maybe not necessarily. I might just assert that AC, apparently failing in his duty, had the thread picked up by another. And that person would be providing a solution that exists in the context of a failed attempt by AC, such that anything AC said on the matter plays a role in the answer, even if only in a negative sense. So in effect, by providing a bogus 'double loop' argument that catalyzes someone to reject it and come up with a real solution, he has in fact 'revealed it to the wise'. This is how he manages to fulfill his role by publishing answers in a readily available text that spurs on a follower to develop the real answer. So in this respect, AC could only have failed in his role if he had never uttered a word about the Heh/Tzaddi problem.
Aside from all that, I know what the actual answer is. I discovered it last night after spending far too much time thinking about this question the last couple of days. Once I have a proper narrative, I'll post it somewhere. And if doing so makes me a Prophet, I can handle that; but I'm much more inclined to think it qualifies me as one of 'the wise'.
But I will say this much, if the simple answer is to change the name of the Star to something else, one must then question why Nuit would insist on that. AC changed the names of many of these cards, particularly the overtly 'Christian' ones. So changing the name of Atu XVII would not have been a big deal. But what would be the purpose? Why single out that one card? It can only be because the name is so misleading that until it is changed, we are stuck with an inaccurate perspective. We need to be able to choose well between the two kinds of love, so we need a guide to point the way.
Litlluw
RLG
For the most part, my posts in this thread have been aimed at pointing out what I consider the fallacious argument known as the 'double loop', as opposed to offering what I consider a definitive solution.
Here's the quote from TBOT:
"Frater Perdurabo had made a very profound study of the Tarot since his initiation to the Order on 18th November, 1898; for, three months later, he had attained the grade of Practicus; as such, he became entitled to know the Secret Attribution. He constantly studied this and the accompanying explanatory manuscripts. He checked up on all these attributes of the numbers to the forms of nature, and found nothing incongruous. But when (8th April, 1904 e.v.) he was writing down the Book of the Law from the dictation of the messenger of the Secret Chiefs, he seems to have put a mental question, suggested by the words in Chapter I, verse 57: "the law of the Fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God" ("The House of God" is one name of the Tarot Trump numbered XVI) to this effect: "Have I got these attributions right?" For there came an interpolated answer, "All these old letters of my book are aright; but x is not the Star. This also is secret; my prophet shall reveal it to the wise". This was exceedingly annoying. If Tzaddi was not "the Star", what was? And what was Tzaddi? He tried for years to counter-change this card, "The Star", which is numbered XVII, with some other. He had no success. It was many years later that the solution came to him. Tzaddi is "The Emperor"; and therefore the positions of XVII and IV must be counterchanged. This attribution is very satisfactory. Yes, but it is something a great deal more than satisfactory; it is, to clear thought, the most convincing evidence possible that the Book of the Law is a genuine message from the Secret Chiefs. For "The Star" is referred to Aquarius in the Zodiac, and "The Emperor" to Aries. Now Aries and Aquarius are on each side of Pisces, just as Leo and Libra are on each side of Virgo; that is to say, the correction in the Book of the Law gives a perfect symmetry in the zodiacal attribution, just as if a loop were formed at one end of the ellipse to correspond exactly with the existing loop at the other end. "
AC specifically says in this text that 'the positions of XVII and IV must be counterchanged'. This obviously didn't happen. The cards were not moved out of sequence as they were in the RWS tarot according to the GD document.
He then goes on to say that the Star is Aquarius and the Emperor is Aries (at least he kept this straight), and that they are on each side of Pisces, therefore the 'correction' in Liber AL creates a loop that 'corresponds exactly' with the existing loop. But no such thing has happened. The sequence of the zodiac signs on the Thoth deck are NOT switched in this case.
Another question is why it would take years to figure out how to 'counterchange this card', i.e. the Star, with some other. Hmmm.. I could go through the 21 possibilities pretty quickly. Star for Fool? No. Star for Magus? No...etc but more importantly he is also saying in this sentence that he wanted to counterchange cards, not letters.
As for Ross' assertion about prophecy and all that, I can't say that I entirely agree. There were many injunctions n the Law that AC simply did not follow through on. So I'm not sure that AC did 'reveal this to the wise' directly, through his solution. I'm also not sure that if we accept one statement in the Law, we have to accept them all. But I do get the point that if one is accepting the Law as a revelation, then it is only fair to play the game thoroughly and say that all of it is a revelation, whether we agree with the terms or not.
Nevertheless, it becomes tricky when faced with a passage such as this. If I say that AC did not fulfill his role as prophet, but I in fact know the correct solution, does that make me a Prophet? I suppose on one reading of the text it does. But maybe not necessarily. I might just assert that AC, apparently failing in his duty, had the thread picked up by another. And that person would be providing a solution that exists in the context of a failed attempt by AC, such that anything AC said on the matter plays a role in the answer, even if only in a negative sense. So in effect, by providing a bogus 'double loop' argument that catalyzes someone to reject it and come up with a real solution, he has in fact 'revealed it to the wise'. This is how he manages to fulfill his role by publishing answers in a readily available text that spurs on a follower to develop the real answer. So in this respect, AC could only have failed in his role if he had never uttered a word about the Heh/Tzaddi problem.
Aside from all that, I know what the actual answer is. I discovered it last night after spending far too much time thinking about this question the last couple of days. Once I have a proper narrative, I'll post it somewhere. And if doing so makes me a Prophet, I can handle that; but I'm much more inclined to think it qualifies me as one of 'the wise'.
But I will say this much, if the simple answer is to change the name of the Star to something else, one must then question why Nuit would insist on that. AC changed the names of many of these cards, particularly the overtly 'Christian' ones. So changing the name of Atu XVII would not have been a big deal. But what would be the purpose? Why single out that one card? It can only be because the name is so misleading that until it is changed, we are stuck with an inaccurate perspective. We need to be able to choose well between the two kinds of love, so we need a guide to point the way.
Litlluw
RLG
