I don't see anything unusual about this (1900), and I wonder what the implication might be?

Might it be because it's *numerologically significant* in some way (like so many others seem ta be)

N Joy

I wonder if it might be useful for one of our numerous numerologists (see what i did there?) to compile and publish a list of numbers that *aren't* of terrific significance to Thelema/*AL*/The Great Work (apparently quite a brief list) ?

As a person who knows not much about numerology, by my reckoning, of the 101 integers from 0-100, 28 have some heavy Thelemic, Biblical, or other oomph, so 27.7% of my sample count as hits. Probably this just reflects my lack of numerology knowledge and there are way more.

[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 31, 33, 40, 44, 55, 64, 66, 69, 72, 77, 88, 99]

The point he is making is that 1900 is

before 1904.

The evidence, included in *Confessions< Collected, *and* notes *proves the 1900 - 1904 timespan. That is evident. That's why it's called "evidence."

The true point, hidden in the implication(s), to be drawn from the evidence, is what?

He had it all in 1900, and made 1904 up?

He was destined to have it all in 1900, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, but it took four years to put it together?

The data presented is interesting and informative. A good job of correlation between times (years) and concepts.

What is the implication? To reveal the implication is to reveal the true point of all this data. The true point is like the true will and the true self.

[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 31, 33, 40, 44, 55, 64, 66, 69, 72, 77, 88, 99]

The easiest way to do this is to offer an Attachment. It's short, if you consider 12 pages short, but you'll get the idea with a swift perusal.

integers from 0-100

I'm not a "proper" numerologist (I don't care much for the "adding it all up" approach, usually), just a Thelemical number-nerd. Without boring you too much, my list below 100:

**8**: "eight, eighty etc."

**11**: obvious Thelemic number, number of digits in the cipher, prime factor of 418

**19**: number of letters of cipher (one of the prime factors of 418)

**22**: obvious one

**28**: numbers/letters of cipher, half of 56

**31**: obvious one

**56**: "six and fifty"

**61**: what dem Jews calls it

**65**: number of manuscript pages (and fascinating properties for an exciting future post 😊 )

**78**: those preposterous cards

**80**: see 8 above

**93**: obvious one

The bonus numbers (less significant):

**2**: prime factor of 418

**9**: only because of the number of "numbers" in the cipher

**18**: "four hundred & **18**"

**20**: page number written on cipher page

**24**: the first "bracketed number" in the cipher

**26**: "the English Alphabet" and my base-26 nonsense

**27**: Liber 27 and base-27 nonsense

**30**: number of digits + letters of cipher

**42**: total page no. of cipher

**66**: verses of ch. 1, a mini-666

**72**: Shemhamphorasch

**75**: verses of ch. 3

**76**: verse no. of cipher

**79**: verses of ch. 2

**89**: the other number in the cipher

So you're right, about 28. The gaps between "interesting" numbers get bigger after 100, until the numbers get too big to remember. As you can see, my numbers are almost all tied to Liber AL in some way, which reflects my obsessive "hobby" of figuring out this book.

reflects my lack of numerology knowledge

I have no numerology knowledge either, I just made up my own nonsense. 😛

9: only because of the number of "numbers" in the cipher

I forgot also because of "*my number is nine by the fools; but with the just I am eight, and one in eight*". Any other numbers found in AL that I didn't mention, small or big, go on my list.