Notifications
Clear all

Trigrammaton  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2011 12:08 am  

I wasn't really sure whether to put this in here, or in the magick subforum or thelema, or what... but in any case, I was curious about Crowley's attributions of the symbols in Liber Trigrammaton to the letters of the English Alphabet.  He was ordered to find the values of the English Alphabet in the Book of the Law, and yet he didn't really get very far in this; Trigrammaton's commentary was the closest thing he attempted, and it seems from his own commentary that he wasn't really very satisfied with this.  I suspect he didn't care too much since he felt that the Hebrew and Greek gematria worked just fine for him.

But Trigrammaton is a fascinating text, and I think could do with a lot more exploration (I know some people have done just that, with different attempts).

My main question is this: Crowley attributed different letters of the alphabet to the different trigrams, putting them in a particular order.  But this order seems very hodgepodge; and while Crowley makes his arguments, I'm wondering if there might not be some virtue, or if anyone has explored, different orderings of the letters to the trigrams? In particular, I'd think the obvious one would be that the second trigram should be "A", the third "B", etc. in the actual order of the alphabet!

What do people think of this?


Quote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/12/2011 2:40 am  

Right up your alley: Trigrammaton.com


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5040
16/12/2011 3:41 am  
"Swamiji" wrote:
I was curious about Crowley's attributions of the symbols in Liber Trigrammaton to the letters of the English Alphabet. 

This subject was covered rather deeply in a fairly recent thread titled, "Where are we now?" ... started by the obscure painter; his leading question was in reference to this material, and a bunch'a people said what they thought.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2011 6:07 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Right up your alley: Trigrammaton.com

I've seen that site. It has some interesting theories, but it takes Crowley's attributions of the english letters for granted; without trying to really question if its the best attributions.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2011 6:09 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Swamiji" wrote:
I was curious about Crowley's attributions of the symbols in Liber Trigrammaton to the letters of the English Alphabet. 

This subject was covered rather deeply in a fairly recent thread titled, "Where are we now?" ... started by the obscure painter; his leading question was in reference to this material, and a bunch'a people said what they thought.

Hmm, does it address the particular question about the choice of the attributions of the english alphabet? In any case, I'm trying to find it and I can't seem to, I looked throught the qabalah subforum but it doesn't seem to be there. Is it in some other subforum?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2011 6:14 am  

I even tried doing a search for that phrase on here, and nothing came up.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/12/2011 8:15 am  
"Swamiji" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Right up your alley: Trigrammaton.com

I've seen that site. It has some interesting theories, but it takes Crowley's attributions of the english letters for granted; without trying to really question if its the best attributions.

Imo, they are the "best" attributions, not only for the system they yield but for the fact that they are the very ones written by the Beast. Sure, there are other attributions of the letters in Trigrammaton, but if they weren't attributions given by the Beast, then they weren't. It matters only, I suppose, if one is wanting to use the Beast's attributions.

Edit: I couldn't find that thread either. It is hard to find threads that were made on the elder forums.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2011 2:35 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Swamiji" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Right up your alley: Trigrammaton.com

I've seen that site. It has some interesting theories, but it takes Crowley's attributions of the english letters for granted; without trying to really question if its the best attributions.

Imo, they are the "best" attributions, not only for the system they yield but for the fact that they are the very ones written by the Beast. Sure, there are other attributions of the letters in Trigrammaton, but if they weren't attributions given by the Beast, then they weren't. It matters only, I suppose, if one is wanting to use the Beast's attributions.

Edit: I couldn't find that thread either. It is hard to find threads that were made on the elder forums.

The thing is, the Hebrew and Greek Qabalahs start in a way that makes logical sense, at the beginning. A=1.
Why would the English Qabalah be an absurd hodgepodge?

It would be another thing if the historical evidence indicated that Crowley put a great deal of thought and work on this, if he'd done something akin to the Book of Thoth, and thus had provided all kinds of commentary and rationale for his choices, but he didn't.  If anything, the historical evidence seems to indicate that he didn't give a flying crap. He did a half-assed job of explaining what seemed to him to be phonetically similar or similar to the shape of the trigram, and then never touched the project again, declaring that his obligation by the Liber AL was technically fulfilled.

My first instinct is that going A, B, C...Z makes a lot more sense; but I was hoping someone here could either argue that there's historical evidence that Crowley actually did put a lot of thought into his attributions, or can give me decent qabalistic rationale as to why Crowley's ordering makes any sense.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2011 2:36 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:

Edit: I couldn't find that thread either. It is hard to find threads that were made on the elder forums.

Googling makes it show up immediately, but on the old forums, which are of course down.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/12/2011 7:21 pm  
"Swamiji" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:

Edit: I couldn't find that thread either. It is hard to find threads that were made on the elder forums.

Googling makes it show up immediately, but on the old forums, which are of course down.

Right.

On the other...

If the alphabet began with T, you would wander why it didn't start with T=1? Good thing its alphabet instead of taubet, I guess.

I see what you are saying, but I also think that any reoganization of the letters and numbers is just as good as any other, if one uses the right "decoder ring". Subsequently, there is only one set really given by the Beast. That it actually works and forms a coherent system is enough for me. It might not be enough for you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2011 9:16 pm  

To clarify a bit: I never had much interest in the "english qabalah", until recent events in my magical work have basically forced me into it (lousy HGAs...). When searching, I came across tons of different versions of "English Qabalahs", none of which were in accord (I was previously vaguely aware that this was the situation, but never really looked at it before).  They all claim to have certain "proofs" for why their system is the right one.

What I found was that none of them were working with the material I had been given to work with, however; none of them rendered any significant qabalistic proofs for the keys I'd been presented with, and none of the diverse gematrias provided an easy system by which to generate what I needed most: the ability to calculate a third letter from two given letters of the English Alphabet (an essential step for filling in magical squares based on key-words).

It eventually hit me that the trigrammaton system did exactly that; bypassing the need of conventional numbers entirely, substituting them for the "new symbols" of the Trigrammaton. I quickly devised a system by which I could figure out the "changing lines" that were produced by adding any two, three, four or more letters to create a new letter in the sequence.

So this works. But what didn't make any sense to me was that the sequence of lettering be scrambled the way it was by Crowley.  I remember Crowley making similar comments regarding the "symbols" of the Tarot and how previous occultists had made hodgepodge attributions of the trumps to the Hebrew alphabet when the most sensible choice was a straight alphabetical order.

I think the same applies here; for the same reason when I was struggling to figure this all out I didn't want to try to rely on "reducing" the alphabet to 22 or to 24 to match with pre-made systems (hebrew, runic, whatever), because I felt that the "qabalah of the english language" must match the English Language as its actually used.

And the fact is, we have an alphabet, not a taubet. Part of that same sensibility that told me that no, it would not make sense to get rid of J or W just because they're "recent additions" to the alphabet for convenience's sake would tell me that it would make sense for any qabalah of the English language to work in a logical order of letters as we actually use them; the same way that the Hebrew qabalah does with the Hebrew aleph-bet, and the same way the Greek qabalah does with the Greek Alpha-beta.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/12/2011 3:48 am  

Oh, yay another Key!


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
17/12/2011 4:36 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
Oh, yay another Key!

Where?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/12/2011 5:14 am  

Exactly.  All of these EQ threads are so boring....


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
17/12/2011 11:37 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
Exactly.  All of these EQ threads are so boring....

Then why participate?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/12/2011 1:46 pm  
"N.O.X" wrote:
Oh, yay another Key!

Its not a "key to the EQ" I was talking about. I have no particular interest in that.  To the extent that I haven't even figured out any number values to the english letters; because I don't need to now.  All I figured out was how to use the Trigrammaton to fill in magic (letter) squares, where one word in the square has already been provided.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/12/2011 4:29 am  

That's actually interesting.  Its just that the part about A.C.'s letter attribution being unsatisfactory has been brought up on here many times and I just may be a bit jaded by alot of the other EQ threads here.  Sorry 'about that, carry on! 


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/12/2011 3:26 pm  
"N.O.X" wrote:
That's actually interesting.  Its just that the part about A.C.'s letter attribution being unsatisfactory has been brought up on here many times and I just may be a bit jaded by alot of the other EQ threads here.  Sorry 'about that, carry on!

I see. I didn't really know that, because until now I despised EQ nonsense and couldn't be bothered to read it. Again, lousy HGA...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/12/2011 5:24 am  

😮


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5040
19/12/2011 3:38 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
😮

😮 😮 😮 !


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/12/2011 3:54 pm  

I always felt that obsessing about an English Qabalah was one of those "traps" of modern (thelemic) occultism, alongside trying to break the "secret code" in the Liber AL, etc. that was more of an ego trip about being the chosen one than about any kind of productive work. The utility of any "solution" to the EQ question I'd ever read was notably inferior to the Hebrew Qabalah.  So I almost never bothered to read about that kind of thing, I wasn't interested.

I'm still not; but sometimes we must go where we are ordered.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/09/2012 3:00 pm  
"Swamiji" wrote:
My main question is this: Crowley attributed different letters of the alphabet to the different trigrams, putting them in a particular order.  But this order seems very hodgepodge; and while Crowley makes his arguments, I'm wondering if there might not be some virtue, or if anyone has explored, different orderings of the letters to the trigrams? In particular, I'd think the obvious one would be that the second trigram should be "A", the third "B", etc. in the actual order of the alphabet!

What do people think of this?

93

Crowley's comment upon his choices indicates to me that he was not at all satisfied with the "hodgepodge" as you say. I agree, and additionally the descriptions of each attribution strike me as contrived and entirely too much of an intellectual reach.

Besides that, the text of AL indicates that one is to "obtain" the order & value, not invent it. This implies that it is given somewhere -- at least, implied by poetic inference.

Where better than the book itself to find the order?

For my own EQ uses, I have been well rewarded and satisfied with the Zarathustrian English Qabalah discovered by Marc Cohen in the mid-nineties e.v. which uses the order of letters as presented within the Book of the Law itself.

From an archived essay:

"III. The Method of order & value

[...]So, we look to Liber AL itself. We are told in:

AL II:54 - "the letters? change them not in style or value!"

"change them not in style" - no Sanskrit or Enochian, but the English Alphabet itself, as verse II:55 states explicitly.

"or value!" - i.e. , we retain a Base 10 math for our Gematria.

4. The Book of the Law, as the first Book of the New Aeon, was written down in English. The letters that appeared in it, and their order, literally created a new Universe, quite similar to the concepts employed in the old Zoharic Qabalistic interpretations of the Hebrew letters. Thus, let us chart the first appearance of each letter of the English alphabet to appear in Liber AL. Crossing out duplicates as we go, we obtain:

HAD TEM NIF S OUVL GCPY RWBK JZXQ
Table 1

H=1   A=2 D=3
S=10  O=20   U=30
R=100  W=200  B=300

T=4   E=5 M=6
V=40    L=50   G=60
K=400 J=500  Z=600

N=7   I=8   F=9
C=70  P=80  Y=90
X=700  Q=800  [&=900]

5. Most importantly, this code - or any English Qabalah code - can not be found in the text of either Chapter II or Chapter III of Liber AL - for therein is no letter Z anywhere but in Chapter I !" /endquote from archived http://www.oocities.org/VVVVV93/ZEQ.html

I have had great effect when applying this order, as extracted from the class A source, to the new symbols of Trigrammaton better than any intellectually contrived EQ.

The values are of course derived from Marc's intuition regarding "they have the half" and "or value". I have experimented with different values -- none appear to be absolute in result, indicating to me that it is an open-ended system; I quickly tire of proofs which generate wondrous gematrias -- I am not impressed by miracles of fractal coincidence, at least enough declare one cipher as 'the one'.

Regardless of what value one assigns to the letters, I submit that the order as derived from AL best fits Trigrammaton with the elegance of being derived from the class A.

93, 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/09/2012 3:11 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Right up your alley: Trigrammaton.com

93

I find the base-three mathematics fascinating. I'm experimenting with this but using the order of letters as derived in Liber AL.

93, 93/93


ReplyQuote
abn53
(@abn53)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 66
29/05/2013 12:56 am  

IMHO Crowley was wrong in attributing the letters to the trigrams. I consider the trigrams to describe the sephiroth. The letters of the alphabet are more regularly attributed to the paths connecting the sephiroth and Liber 231.


ReplyQuote
Share: