Rosanne
You mean this ~ ? Yes BrightEye! From space this would be considered a Water Planet- and we all flow on it and in it, and I consider ~ this is my connection to the past and the future. ~~~~Rosanne~~~~~ I am just one drop.
i like that idea. it's lovely. it's probably also your connction to others on this water planet living in the present.Rosanne said:You mean this ~ ? Yes BrightEye! From space this would be considered a Water Planet- and we all flow on it and in it, and I consider ~ this is my connection to the past and the future. ~~~~Rosanne~~~~~ I am just one drop.
Would not the 'Mother language' be the meanings of the individual sounds to the human psyche? This has been understood in the past, surely. For if I have been able to uncover what generates these meanings (no-one having shaken me of this belief so far), then those who created the tools I used -- whose manufacture is far beyond my skill -- must have grasped them better than I.Rosanne said:So far, man has not found the Mother language of them all-
You do see the mother-gathering-us-to-her-bosom (read breasts) in old Semitic mem, do you not? I'll go along with you in spades on the 'ma sounding word for mom' bit: mem, called 'silence' in Sefer Yetzirah (mum's the word), is the mother of all mothers, as it centers or defines the 1st wheel (world of sefirotic origin), generated by rays (spokes, Batons) centered on the brow or crown of Adam Qadmon (did the Britons call him Taliesin, 'Radiant-brow'?), which contains in its belly all the other wheels (called 'wheels within wheels' in Ezekiel). This, the most all-encompassing 'mother', logically precedes division into the sexes, in case anyone thought it a male-chauvinist plot, and is probably not the same belly we see in the bottom half of the letter B.. . . but there are a few words that have been written down that is thought were there- a mem sounding word for water, a ma sounding word for mother are just two. They were a wavy line for water and breast shaped letter/word for Mother.
I was disappointed and frankly baffled by volume 2 of Hulse's book -- the 'Western' tradition -- not including Hebrew. It is my fault, I guess, for not checking it more closely before ordering. And I gather he takes Mather as the great figurer-outer of something, though what is not clear (beyond that it involves laying Hebrew and trumps side by side starting with LeMat then reversing VIII and XI). Meanwhile he appears entirely ignorant of modern epigraphy (the works of Barry Fell et al), as well as the Libyan and Tifinag alphabets (perhaps Meroitic and Egyptian would be in the 'Eastern' volume as well).Ross G Caldwell said:Gee, thanks (ducks for cover)
I think you'll be repaid in one way or another. Your theoretical framework is very different from Hulse's, . . .
venicebard said:I was disappointed and frankly baffled by volume 2 of Hulse's book -- the 'Western' tradition -- not including Hebrew. *
It is my fault, I guess, for not checking it more closely before ordering.
And I gather he takes Mather as the great figurer-outer of something, though what is not clear (beyond that it involves laying Hebrew and trumps side by side starting with LeMat then reversing VIII and XI).
Meanwhile he appears entirely ignorant of modern epigraphy (the works of Barry Fell et al), as well as the Libyan and Tifinag alphabets (perhaps Meroitic and Egyptian would be in the 'Eastern' volume as well).
Interesting also that he does include the real key to it all (which he evidently rejects in favor of Mathers), on page 116: chart listing bardic numeration of letters -- which he evidently got from Graves, as did I (I wish someone could track down Graves's source for this, though he moved in circles where he might have gotten it first hand from some scholar in the field, such as his grandfather[?] Charles[?] Graves). And I suppose I can justify the expenditure by admitting I had not worked out the sequences that add to 32, as he did, which he (probably correctly) links to Kabbalah. There may be other keys embedded in this approach, which I will now be on the lookout for.
I don't hold a grudge of course
(I hope not, since it was mostly my fault anyway), but I must remember from now on that you recommended a book by an author who evidently takes Crowley seriously, though he did do some research into the Golden Dawn's credibility it appears.
But so much speculation, in what he documents, and so little GENUINE TRADITION.
Rosanne said:They described the sounds that our mouths make by relating that sound to a shape, we now call a letter. They were for conveying information, that could not be heard orally. It does not appear that these marks originally were used to explain anything esoteric. After all pictograms(first writing) seem to be about the convenience of counting stores and stock; abjads about directions, Gods, stars and the like.To make a mark understandable- it had to relate to the sound of the word- so Ox was the word that sounded like an outbreath AAAA- so you drew a head with horns -that was an ox.
venicebard said:- which he evidently got from Graves, as did I (I wish someone could track down Graves's source for this, though he moved in circles where he might have gotten it first hand from some scholar in the field, such as his grandfather[?] Charles[?] Graves).
Wonderful post- there back a page or two Kwaw. There will be neverending wonderings about esoteric thought overlaying the written words of ancient times- and even of today.Kwaw said:"How wise thou art," the High Priestess took up the challenge, "and how foolish we, to think we could conceal from thee our greatest mystery."
Yes, one problem with Graves is his failure at times to stipulate when he was speculating, but he wrote like that partly because it appeared to him obvious -- at least to anyone involved in serious study -- when he was waxing poetic and when he was relaying information. He was, after all, an extremely well-read scholar, and to say all he does is speculate misses the point: he was trying to peer past the veil of modern scholarship (as opposed to around it) into actual antiquity, by building on what is known.kwaw said:... there is so much speculation in what Graves documents, and so little GENUINE TRADITION.
He does not document, he speculates.
He was a rather good poet (I have belatedly discovered), but I think it more accurate to say in this context (that of his non-fiction) that he realized, as do I, that poetic themes properly understood are not speculation but psychological truth, and as such present in all ages. The particularizations of it in such times as that of the Troubadours or of the bards themselves, even, can best be understood in terms of the fundamental poetic theme, which he calls "life in death and death in life" and parses as heroic top half versus satiric underside of the wheel of the year. I have not in the main found it difficult to distinguish between what he presents as evidence and the flights of fancy taking off therefrom, one example of the latter being the number system he himself seems to subscribe to, based on order of letters in the calendar-alphabet (meaning quasi-ogham order but with vowels interspersed at equinoxes and solstices), which probably did influence alef-bet order, as he suggests, but certainly did not supercede bardic numeration, at the deepest level of understanding anyway.He was a poet, his source a muse, not a document; an inspiration, not a limitation.