kwaw
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea
I don't see it, and to continue your analogy men don't have 30 [or 12th] legs [or missing feet].
All letters make up one body according to the SY, this is 'fiction' or 'forgery' or a 'different body' according to you. Excepting in instance where SY agrees [according to your unique interpretation] with yourself the rest is irrelevant and/or false. Surely then better to leave the SY out of it altogether than rely on parts that according to you are 'true' and rest 'forged' without supporting evidence? On what basis do you decide what is 'true' and 'forged'? It seems to me you have very poor understanding of the SY on which to make any such judgement? You seem to have grasped bits of it but not in context of the overal concept. That which you quote [if you have quoted, i don't remember a quote, merely mention of the text] in support of your argument is we are too believe from your interpretation 'true', all the rest anyone else quotes against it 'noise'!? I don't buy it. Demonstrate your overall understanding of the SY and the basis upon which you judge which 'bits' to be 'true' and which 'forged' or otherwise leave it out of your argument all together.
Kwaw
Huck said:Originally posted by Ross G Caldwell [/i]
First Problem: Understanding the ABC-man:
10th = 10: Iod = Hand ?
of course, this are "hands,", cause two hands have 10 fingers
11th: kaph = 20: ... ?
of course, this are toes, cause 10 fingers and 10 toes are 20.
12th: Lamed: The "L" still looks like the leg with foot off the alphabet-man.
I don't see it, and to continue your analogy men don't have 30 [or 12th] legs [or missing feet].
With that we've a curious phenomen (too much body signals at a specific location in the row) inside a given group (names in relation to signs of alphabet), a projecting hypothetical exspectation (there is an ABC-man) with a number-related "order" (12, six for the head, six for the body) out of an older context which might contain a real rememberance (Sepher Yetzirah),
All letters make up one body according to the SY, this is 'fiction' or 'forgery' or a 'different body' according to you. Excepting in instance where SY agrees [according to your unique interpretation] with yourself the rest is irrelevant and/or false. Surely then better to leave the SY out of it altogether than rely on parts that according to you are 'true' and rest 'forged' without supporting evidence? On what basis do you decide what is 'true' and 'forged'? It seems to me you have very poor understanding of the SY on which to make any such judgement? You seem to have grasped bits of it but not in context of the overal concept. That which you quote [if you have quoted, i don't remember a quote, merely mention of the text] in support of your argument is we are too believe from your interpretation 'true', all the rest anyone else quotes against it 'noise'!? I don't buy it. Demonstrate your overall understanding of the SY and the basis upon which you judge which 'bits' to be 'true' and which 'forged' or otherwise leave it out of your argument all together.
Kwaw