Flornoy's Elements

Hey Venicebard

Several interesting notions Venicebard, particularly the idea about Mars being "a mother defending her offspring". I've never thought about Mars from that perspective before. Would you mind listing your sources, so we can explore further?

Ayumi

Ayumi said:

Several interesting notions Venicebard, particularly the idea about Mars being "a mother defending her offspring". I've never thought about Mars from that perspective before. Would you mind listing your sources, so we can explore further?

Ayumi

Click to expand...

Well, the planetary cycles are as they are given in Hermetic Kabbalah (that and the letter-paths being all I trust it on), with the proviso that the sun is not just the year (6) but the great year (2) that coordinates year and day (ecliptic and equator), which is, by the way, forward rotation of the heavens about the zodiac in effect, though indeed it is precession of the latter about the former in terms of what causes it of course.

Beyond that, it was my own deduction from first principles (number, etc.) based on knowledge from other aspects of (bardic) Qabbalah that those fashioning the system knew the atomic numbers and what these signified in terms of both valence and human use.

As for the Tree in Cups, this is my interpretation of it based in part on what is set forth in the book Thinking and Destiny, by Harold W. Percival, but also simply on logic: from a neutral (1) come male and female (2-3), which become a new male and female (4-5) to produce offspring (6), and a third male and female type (7-8) when producing dual (unagreed-upon) offspring (9-10). This produces four 'earths', in the pattern of the tetraktys of Pythagoras: 1, where Adam Qadmon dwells, 2-3 where the test of balance occurs, 4-5-6 where the test is failed and creation is replaced by procreation (mortality), and 7-8-9-10 where desire-to-procreate is replaced by lust (hence suffering). We, of course, inhabit this fourth 'earth'.

venicebard said:

And identification of Helios, the sun, with fire is exoteric, as a true initiate into Hermetic science would surely realize that the sun is air: it is air's receptivity to fire, just as gold is matter's receptivity to current. The moon is water's receptivity to fire, just as silver is matter's second-best receptivity to current, second-best because water is distracted by also being receptive to air and to itself.

Click to expand...

Just to note: Silver is a better electrical conducter than gold is, if that's what is referred to?

TenOfSwords said:

Just to note: Silver is a better electrical conducter than gold is, if that's what is referred to?

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for pointing this out to me! I must have misremembered (unless the assessment has changed over the last half-century or so). Gold is the most malleable and ductile metal, silver the most electrically and thermally conductive.

This means my previous rationalization must be altered, I admit. Gold is apparently less subject to corrosion, which gives its conductivity greater staying power (as befits the sun being in essence the 'precessional' great year that rules the relation between year/ecliptic and day/equator), but I am inclined to think gold's malleability holds the key, and that radiant or stellar energy therefore acts on airy matter mainly through turbulent change (like unto the hammer's blow) and only secondarily through current. It would act on fluid matter, then, mainly through current and only secondarily through turbulent change . . . something like that (I'm merely trying to grasp the deeper goings-on here, not preaching).

From experience in the electronics industry, Gold is listed as the best conductor (without stating 'of what' it is the best conductor) in a lot of publications, especially HiFi litterature/magazines, so I wouldn't ascribe it to memory by default... Point being that chemical/physical properties of the elements (and other materials obviously) should be considered somewhat suspect if they're listed in non-reference litterature because many authors forget to check which property they're actually referring to and mixups happens and spreads to other authors and so forth... Electrical properties of gold/silver being a good example of that happening.

Wikipedia has some good overview articles of the elements and their various attributes (chemical, physical, mechanical etc.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

TenOfSwords said:

Wikipedia has some good overview articles of the elements and their various attributes (chemical, physical, mechanical etc.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

Click to expand...

Thanx, for when I can get more than 2 1-hr. sessions online a day. But interesting they do not seem to show the way the table was laid out but a half-century or so ago, with the rare earths grouped in a single box (which is closer to the reality of the matter). It is with this old form of it that one can come to grips with the numerical patterns inherent in it. For instance, the squares of 7 and 9 that preceed (tin and lead,) the metals of Jupiter and Saturn (the visible gas giants) are just above and below the first clump of rare earths, which are centered in the square of 8. And so on.

The 'standard periodic table' is only 'standard' in the meaning of being the most commonly used. It's basically just one way of arranging a system with many dimensions into a 2 dimensional representation.

It's evolving as more of the theoretical elements are demonstrated to be able to exist (for a couple of nanoseconds) and fitted into their proper place in the table... I imagine that the bounds of the table was stretched too far and a re-arrangement of it occured at some point after the version you looked at. Around 20 elements (Ununoctium in 2006) have been 'confirmed' since 1950 and formally placed in a period.

There are several different layouts of the table to give a more direct visual representation of the various periods and electron configurations and focusing more on a particular aspect than the 'standard' table does.

If you're looking at the electron configuration in regards to numerology then there's a circular layout of the table that focus on the structure that you may find interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_periodic_tables

I know that it made quantum chemistry a whole lot more intuitive when I was using it than the 'standard' table does because the orbital configuration of the elements are represented more directly.

... just a thought

Those are some interesting speculations but I seriously doubt that Kabbalah or The Periodic Table were inspiration for the creators of the Tarot.

Sorry.

Cinammon Sue said
Those are some interesting speculations but I seriously doubt that Kabbalah or The Periodic Table were inspiration for the creators of the Tarot.

Click to expand...

I agree from a historic perspective that the creators of the tarot were probably not consciously aware of the modern periodic table. However, the cards have an internal structure that can be used to express many truths, both known and unknown. When a child takes his crayons and draws a big number four in soothing blues and greens, he is not consciously expressing the "higher essence" of the number four, as transmitted to us from the time of Pythagoras. Nor is the child aware of the subtle effect or symbolism of the colors. Yet the soothing blue four contains these truths regardless.

We could debate "till the cows come home" whether or not the Tarot was consciously encoded with some mystical meanings. Practically this is not important. Each number in a suit DOES truly reflect an aspect of reality. The image of a sword DOES truly lend a symbolism to a given number. A king IS a valid symbol for the male principle in nature. A queen IS a valid symbol for the female principle. The image of the charioteer DOES reflex pride, valor, spirited aggression, victory, etc. These energies ARE related to the energies ancient astrologers gave to the heavenly sphere of MARS. Etcetera.... Etcetera... Whether or not the creators of the Tarot were intending these deeper meanings is irrelevant. They are there never the less.

There is the old story about five blind men touching a different part of an elephant, and then arguing about what an elephant must look like. We are the blind men, and the elephant is the truth. Each of us has a 'truth' and these are all part of the bigger 'truth'. Even if our perspective truths seem to contradict someone elses 'truth', they can still both be true.

(Insert group hug here. )

Ayumi

Should not historical research be guided by what is actual and real? I challenge anyone to study the matter closely and argue to me that there is not a clear -- even if partly poetic, heaven forbid (as if there were no poets in those days) -- connexion 'twixt TdM trumps and the chemical atom-types.

That tarot's molders knew nothing of how number manifests in matter's structure is an assumption, even if it escapes one's notice. (I'll tiptoe off now.)