Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea
Originally posted by kwaw
which three chapters, according to you, are the 'main' chapters'?
**** The 3 mothers as the mind of the inventer of the alphabet perceived them. The structure isn't affected by a condition, if the 3 guiding letters were already called "mothers" and it isn't affected, if aleph-mem-shin were already the guiding letters -actually it looks, that they weren't.****
The earliest reference doesn't call them 'mothers' at all. It is possible this is a scribal error.
*** see above - if they were called mother, okay, if they were not called mothers, it doesn't change anything. ***
My old sentence" **** 3 great chapters and naturally anybody, who in old time wanted to make an Alphabet, wanted a sorted Alphabet, an ordered structure. The "mothers" in the SY give the basic structure
****
Why naturally?
**** It is always naturally, that oders like the alphabet or Tarot or others of that kind start simple - and become more complex and occasionally "mysterious and not understandable" by historical changes. It is a"normal, "natural" run. The 5x14-deck was also simple, the Tarot was mysterious****
Why the earliest alphabet?
**** Hm ... Good question. Do you know of an older? ***
There is no evidence here for the earliest alphabet, nothing I haven't quoted before, the SY and kabbalistic texts [including 17th century Luria] that up until now you have dismissed as 'fiction' and 'forgery'. Something hits your button and suddenly they become authoritive texts in proof of your position?
**** Hm. I speak of the archeological findings. Luria had problems to know them. Of course the long alphabetic development through various cultures and forms (inclusive all that was Luria said in this theme also testify the MUST-HAVE-BEEN-existence of an Alphabet, which was the first.***
Yes, there is an abc man in kabbalistic text, nothing new or original in that. All 22 letters are involved, according to you up until now only 12, the very text you have previously quoted contradicts your own position, and suddenly...I find it hard to be even bothered.... it is going beyond exasperation to mere boredom.
**** Well, I feel bound to see only that in the old ABC-man what I do see intuitively by the graphical old signs and the old names as "given data" - anything else I do neglect as "too late" (both data sources are of course disputable, if they really are securely really old - this complex theme I do avoid here, cause I've a first problem to communicate an idea about the object).
However, in the interpretation of the given data I'm allowed to note, that later forms of a near or even far culture seems to be mirrored or show similarities or are nearly obviously identical, when they are - that's normal analyses of a system.
In my final conclusion I decide about my opinion, what the researched object is.
At the momentary state I do see from the given data, that there is an ABC-man very good imaginable from letter Iod to letter shin about the distance of 12 units, letter 10 - 21.
The "body"-reflections in SY are rather different to the observed object, it attributes different.
The basic order of SY, 3 mother, 7 double, 12 simple letter. however, shows similarities.
Of course me as researcher has to see, what I see. When I see differences I say: "I see differences", and if I see similarities I say: "I see similarities". Any problems with that?
****
Not only did you claim there are only 12, but that the 12 are sequential which you associate with the 12 simple letters, which aren't sequential.
***** They aren't sequential in the SY, I know that, and that's the reason, why I earlier said, that the SY "forges" the earlier order. Well, it's not really forgery, but the early alphabet has its order and the Sepher Yetzirah has another. I observe that and I state that. ****
You are all over the place. There is a kabbalistic ABC man, this is testified to not only in kabbalistic texts but the pre-kabbalistc text of the SY. The SY has at least two models, the concentric and the ABC anthropmorphic models [the latter of which provided the inspiration for Luria's ToL models]. Nothing new, or original, or proof of your pre-historical 'simple master' or inventor of the alphabet as 'ABC' man. Though the ABC man is affirmed and authentic in kabbalistic tradition, up untill now you have poo pooed any kabbalistic tradition i have quoted as being too late and not relevant. And I agree it is too late and irrelevant for your pre-historic simple ABC man, but I was never trying to prove that, and you can't have it both ways, unless you are admitting your first way was in error and you were wrong.
**** I've really problems to identify my earlier error, which you seem see so clearly. My data doesn't depend on kabbalistic traditions, if I refer to an ABC-man. I can see an ABC-man without knowing the word kabbala at all, provided I know, what an ABC is, I'm not blind. An ABC-man to me is imaginable in various alphabets, Greek Alphabet, Roman Alphabet, Arabian Alphabet etc.
Of course I'm allowed to note, that in other contexts, later, earlier, near or foreign, also ABC-men appear, either similar or different or nearly identical. Their existence adds to the statement, that the ABC-man in my observed object is not an unusual feature in comparable systems, that's all. In the case of SY even a filiation seems possible and even possibly expectable, as a communicative bridge between System 1 and System 2 is given and the object is "somehow identical" in essence. ***
It is quite simple, 7 gateways of the soul, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 nostrils and mouth. Read 5 senses, the five doorways of perception. 2 eyes [sight], 2 ears [hearing], 2 nostrils [smell] and a mouth [taste, because the mouth contains the tongue, organ of taste; touch, because it is encompassed by two pairs that touch each other, the upper and lower jaw with their rows of teeth, and upper and lower lips].
*** As far I can compare this, we have with the letters 16-19 pe, ain, tzaddi, quof in series 4 senses indicated in the old alphabet-names. As far I see it, I would expext here the group of "head", in which I would not expect the "double letters".****
*** But perhaps your idea is not bad, perhaps it describes the way of change ***
Actually autorbis (and later me, too) saw it this way:
Original idea (mine):
(1-3)------ 3 mothers
(4-9) ----- 6 double letters
(10-21) - 12 simple letters
(22) ------ 7th (centered) double letter
You indirectly (perhaps not consciously) support the idea:
3 mothers
12 simple letters
7 double letters
This order is nearer to the order of the SY .... this makes it interesting. But the SY is not authoritative ... it is later.
Actually I would think, that it started still in the version, that we earlier prefered as shown above, but might have changed later to the form, suggested by your cited SY-information.
1800, perhaps 2000 years between original alphabet and SY are a lot of time, there could have been various changes between "idea 1" (oldest Alphabet) and "idea 2" (SY).
Do I sell something? 