Numbering of the paths

Richard

......GD and Crowley made some clarifications but also some disinformations, just like Eliphas Levi and others done. But as above, so below - that's another key :) ......

Why and how did the GD promulgate disinformation? Did they deliberately delude their own members at every level? Are you referring to things like the Cipher Manuscripts?
 

Zephyros

Why and how did the GD promulgate disinformation? Did they deliberately delude their own members at every level?

This argument is used time and time again, but for the life of me I never really got it. Waite did lie about the Courts, but the GD in general and Crowley in particular didn't, as far as I can find. But maybe they omitted and because of that, I couldn't find any evidence of omissions! Still, there are some things that are a given, and some things that come from inference. The latter does abound in Crowley's work, but isn't what I would call omissions.
 

Richard

I haven't seen any evidence that the GD (or Crowley, for that matter) is deliberately deceptive about their system. The Tree of Life is a model of reality, not reality itself. If the GD/Kircher Tree seems wrong, work out a better Tree, but my gut feeling is that it is worth giving the GD or Thelemic versions a fair trial before tossing it out.

It is interesting that the orientations of the connecting paths can be correlated with the mother, double, and simple letters. However, is this in itself sufficient reason to reject something that seems to make sense otherwise?

I myself have struggled with certain GD things. For example, why is Temperance/Art the path from Tiphareth to Yesod? Whether or not the path assignment is correct, I now understand its alchemical (and practical) significance, so now it seems right to me. If I had tossed out the correlation on the basis of my initial impression, this insight would have been nipped in the bud.
 

Richard

I generally don't like the idea of disinformation, although an argument can be made for its use in special circumstances, such as national disasters or international conflicts. Ever since its alleged use by the Bavarian Illuminati, it is often assumed by avid conspiracy theorists to be a standard practice of other so-called secret societies, such as the Freemasons and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, to disguise their ultimate sinister goals. It is not a term to be used lightly, and I think it would be of general interest to have concrete proof of how it was used by, say, Eliphas Levi or A. Crowley.
 

vvvoid

I generally don't like the idea of disinformation, although an argument can be made for its use in special circumstances, such as national disasters or international conflicts. Ever since its alleged use by the Bavarian Illuminati, it is often assumed by avid conspiracy theorists to be a standard practice of other so-called secret societies, such as the Freemasons and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, to disguise their ultimate sinister goals. It is not a term to be used lightly, and I think it would be of general interest to have concrete proof of how it was used by, say, Eliphas Levi or A. Crowley.

Ok, maybe "not so proof", but concrete: In the Book of Thoth Crowley describes that Levi done some switches in his book to keep some disinformation. In next pages after that Crowley tells about path switches he made, especially IV and XVII. But in chapter dedicated to IV, The Emperor, he describes how this card reflects connection between Chockmah and Tiphereth. So he contradicts to itself. Do you believe that was made by accident?
Also read the part of the Book of Thoth, where he describes how Sephirots emanate. The way they emanate is primary, they follows one concept. Making switches in paths contradicts to these emanations. And if you'll switch IV and XVII cards back to original place and switch numbers of XI to the VIII (as it is in some other dacks), you will ALMOST get right path numbering and you'll see another hidden switch no one talks about. if you'll fix that switch you will get tree where sephiroths follow the same rule for emanations via paths (don't forget about Daat)
 

Zephyros

Ok, maybe "not so proof", but concrete: In the Book of Thoth Crowley describes that Levi done some switches in his book to keep some disinformation. In next pages after that Crowley tells about path switches he made, especially IV and XVII. But in chapter dedicated to IV, The Emperor, he describes how this card reflects connection between Chockmah and Tiphereth. So he contradicts to itself. Do you believe that was made by accident?

I agree it is an anomaly, but the Star/Emperor switch is a bit bigger than that flub, and is discussed exhaustively both in Crowley's other works, and this forum. There are a few other cases in the BoT where it is evident that he was looking at an earlier version of the card than what was ultimately published. As to contradictions, they abound, especially in the tables. On the other hand, the relatively few times he says that a certain grade is needed to understand this or that idea isn't obfuscation, but admission that some schooling is needed to grasp some material.

Also read the part of the Book of Thoth, where he describes how Sephirots emanate. The way they emanate is primary, they follows one concept. Making switches in paths contradicts to these emanations. And if you'll switch IV and XVII cards back to original place and switch numbers of XI to the VIII (as it is in some other dacks), you will ALMOST get right path numbering and you'll see another hidden switch no one talks about. if you'll fix that switch you will get tree where sephiroths follow the same rule for emanations via paths (don't forget about Daat)

I'm not sure I understand this part. He felt he was justified in making the changes, considering the dictation of the Book of Law. The SY does not dictate which paths connect to which emanation, which is why everyone has a crack at doing it themselves. Even the original, pre-GD Kirtcher Tree isn't the "original," it isn't even correct. It is merely a model adopted by many that seems to work. That Crowley made changes to the original GD Tree is merely making a mutant out of a bastard, so that even without the authority of Aiwass, Crowley was well within his rights to change things, as is anyone else, really.

I don't understand which "hidden switch" you're referring to, but that's probably because it's hidden. As for Daat, I've never seen it appear prominently in GD texts, if at all. They either ignored it or didn't think it was worth wasting time over. It certainly doesn't appear in the BoT Tree.
 

Richard

Ok, maybe "not so proof", but concrete: In the Book of Thoth Crowley describes that Levi done some switches in his book to keep some disinformation. In next pages after that Crowley tells about path switches he made, especially IV and XVII. But in chapter dedicated to IV, The Emperor, he describes how this card reflects connection between Chockmah and Tiphereth. So he contradicts to itself. Do you believe that was made by accident?......
If AC were trying to be devious, I think he would have covered his tracks better. For example, he would have avoided attributing Atu IV to Tzaddi and XVII to Heh.
 

Richard

Okay, lets look at the Marseille or Thoth trumps in their natural numerical order, starting with the Fool. If these are aligned with the Hebrew alphabet, we have following correlations: Emperor-IV-Heh, Justice/Adjustment-VIII-Tet, Strength/Lust-XI-Lamed, Star-XVII-Tzaddi.

The GD switched the letter attributions of Justice and Strength by interchanging the traditional numbers of Justice and Strength but keeping the number-letter correlations. Waite followed the GD practice.

AC retained the traditional historical card numeration, but switched the letter correlations so that VIII and XI were attributed to Lamed and Tet, respectively. To AC this justified also interchanging the letter attributions of the zodiacally opposite cards, so that IV and XVII become attributed to Tzaddi and Heh, respectively, thus observing Aiwass' declaration that 'Tzaddi is not the Star'.

If there are any mistakes in the above, they should be obvious. My brain works better with diagrams and tables rather than propositions.