Eisens' English Cabala

Azoth

The Force is Strong With This One
Ever read it? If so, please explain it to me!

This is two volumes with one on the english alphabet and tarot. The other is how it relates to phi. This latter discourse is way over my head!

In any case, have any experience with the "kabbalistic" angle of letters? That's sound, shape and number.

A is interesting, apart from the more known aspects of aleph or ox. An ox is Castrated. Sacrifice (for service).

But I can add a new idea from looking into aether physics. The A is like the vortex, angle or "point". The primal (functional) shape of the universe is the torus...
And or the sphere, where we enter cymatics. Note the nodes and lines forming geometric shapes.

We feel the A reflects the node (touching the edge of the sphere and extending down into it thus causing an event in a homogenous field).

I made a connection and am wondering if anyone else has.

Abracadabra. Or Crowley's Abrahadabra.

What do we see?

Five A's (plus a linear a,b,c,d).

What is the A but an angle (= energetic event)?

5 A's. What has 5 A's?

...The Pentagram.

What does it represent? Man, among other things.

Tadah!.... Or Abracadabra, here I am! ;D

Now all this is actually about Phi! How Phi interacts with Itself. Which is what Eisen goes on about in that second tome. He seems to make it ultra convoluted tho.
But in general, the letters seem to actually spring from these geometries. This jibes with Dan Winter's material.

I'm looking for that missing ingredient between these geometries, reference points and archetype and or (human anyway) psychology. So we're not quite satisfied with the hebrew letters on the Tree of Life. Unless there's something there that contemporary schools miss.
As archetypes, the planets and signs are fine. Not sure what direct role they may play in the schematics of aether dynamics and or the idea of densities.
The unfolding from the implicate.....

:)
 
Why? The natural shaman needs none of this sort of thing and doing EE is the surest way to find out if you are a natural shaman and to awaken the abilities.

Most of what we know as "magic" and so on is just the result of those without the gift trying to co-opt it and gain power over the forces of life. There is no free lunch in the Universe and if you follow that route, the price is rather high. Just do the research on all of those who followed those paths, deep research, read everything they wrote, find out about their personal lives, how they lived and died. That should cure you of the urge to follow in their footsteps.

On the topic of Dan Winter, have a look: http://danwinter.com/

There you will read that Dan admits to bamboozling and fraud because his audience is "too stupid to know the difference." I've met the man, corresponded with him, read his stuff; nothing but schizoidal word salad.

I reckon if you want to talk about this stuff, you'll need to find a different forum. The purpose of this one is plainly explicated here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9553.0 ... and it doesn't include discussing cabala in any context other than historical analysis.
 
We've known about the legal stuff. Are you throwing All his material out? I've seen both him and Bridges on youtube and every now and then you can tell they're winging it.

But I like the phi stuff which does fit IF you're looking at structure (as to meaning etc). Making direct correlations to everything else is stretching it.

Was having fun with the post above and tried to convey that.
 
Azoth said:
We've known about the legal stuff. Are you throwing All his material out?

Yup. Stan Tenen's, too. It's all a load of hooey.

And remember, I live with a mathematician. We've looked at this stuff ten ways to Sunday. It's gibberish. Buzzwords. Schizoidal mind-warping fantasies.
 
Azoth, I have seen a few times you have been asked:
And who exactly is, 'We' ???

I could be wrong but seems as if you like to talk at people, but not with people. To me, a main purpose of this forum is discussion, of which I think I see little if any attempt on your part. I mean nothing derogatory but I am having a difficult time trying to understand what point(s) you are trying to convey. Could you please slow down and hold a discussion?

edit: I guess I'm trying to adjust to your use of words. Much thought can go into one word. Forgive my simple tongue as I use simple words and phrases to hopefully avoid misunderstanding. True that our form of communication is woefully inadequate to convey exactly what is going though the mind.
 
Al Today said:
...I use simple words and phrases to hopefully avoid misunderstanding.


So did the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman. In fact, he insisted on them.
He seemed to be an honest person, in my view, and saw through artificial complexity by always insisting on simplicity and facts. For anything he understood, he could tell it in many different ways, as opposed to folks who are satisified with just the "gist" of things and have to stay 'off the ground', so to speak.

You can read his personal version of The Challenger Report, contained in his book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" to see what I mean. He also loved simple, humorous language, filled with little pictures and enthusiasm. His techniques for puncturing pomposity were unrestrained. :D


ref:
Feynman, Richard. What Do You Care What Other People Think. pp. 165–166.

Or:
Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle
_http://duartes.org/gustavo/blog/post/Richard-Feynman-Challenger-Disaster-Software-Engineering
_http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt


Actually, anything he writes is worth reading by anybody, I think. I believe that's a good thing, so I don't think anybody should ever have to apologize for something like that.

Edit: Added later: updated links
 
Thanks Buddy, for bringing up this great book: "What Do You Care What Other People Think". It's one of my favorites and Ark's, too. Ark is always saying that if you can't explain what is in your head to a child, you don't know what you are talking about. He and I have a lot of conversations about some pretty advanced physics and he's always able to explain the mathematical concepts to me so that I can understand and participate in the conversation.
 
Laura said:
Thanks Buddy, for bringing up this great book: "What Do You Care What Other People Think". It's one of my favorites and Ark's, too. Ark is always saying that if you can't explain what is in your head to a child, you don't know what you are talking about. He and I have a lot of conversations about some pretty advanced physics and he's always able to explain the mathematical concepts to me so that I can understand and participate in the conversation.

Indeed, thank you Buddy and Laura.

I did not know that book. I have just bought it on amazon. ;D
 
Well that's too bad about Stan and Dan. I would have to side with you on this, however much I enjoyed perusing that stuff. You get the red flags when they glaringly gloss over an item of import. I corresponded with Stan for a bit and he's good at trashing other's work.
Does Ark have anything on 4d geometry etc for the layman?

I've tried to practice the above in trying to explain ideas from scratch to others. Depending on the topic, you may end up questioning your angle.
 
... if you can't explain what is in your head to a child, you don't know what you are talking about. ...

For the most part, this is true. When I was a software contractor, i ran into this all too often. My competitors would overcomplicate an issue while using fancy buzzwords until the client would get that glassy look in their eyes showing that the client had no idea what the contractor was saying. But boy-o-boy, could that contractor spin a yarn.!.!.! When it came down to DOing work, the longwinded buffoon didn't know squat. When I see people attempting to manipulate through blatant obfuscation... well.. that fires off my piss off program...
 
Al Today said:
For the most part, this is true. When I was a software contractor, i ran into this all too often. My competitors would overcomplicate an issue while using fancy buzzwords until the client would get that glassy look in their eyes showing that the client had no idea what the contractor was saying. But boy-o-boy, could that contractor spin a yarn.!.!.!

Well, from what I gather, that observation certainly seems to be common in the software engineering sector. Scott Adams is certainly aware of it. In fact, his character 'Dilbert' seems to be operating within a strategic enclosure while dealing with all those Gurdjieff Man 1 and Man 2's that surround him. :)
 
Thanks Buddy. I have a few Dilbert cartoons around my office, lol.
Yep, some people are considerate only to themselves. For example, they can be quite an artist for appearances sake. They'll do almost anything for maximum profit or gain. Elevating their ego into supersized proportions. They possess abilities and are experienced with well honed performances for the purpose of manipulation to get others to serve them, because they cannot do the job themselves. They target those who are ignorant in the ways of psychopathy... Although they have no emotions, no conscience, they can feign emotions and feelings. They play with their prey as a master musician would play their musical instrument of choice...

One major frustration is that many on this BBM live in deep rooted denial. Many cannot and/or will not recognize the fact that yes, there is another race of humans on this BBM. Another species of human kind. A predator species.

edit for clarity...
 
Back
Top Bottom