THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.divination,alt.pagan.magick,alt.thelema,alt.occult
From: jake@kiblah.demon.co.uk (jake stratton-kent)
Subject: English Qaballa
Date: 7 Jan 1999 22:35:45 -0800

	[note, I edited these multiple posts for readability - 333]

jake@kiblah.demon.co.uk (jake stratton-kent):
>#># Old style kabbalah generally involved interpretation of (Hebrew) 
>#># Holy Books, in this 'Aeon;' the Holy Books are in English, and so 
>#># we are accustomed to speaking of 'English Qaballa'.

tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (hara):
>#> but why call it 'English Qaballa'?  why use the word 'Qaballa' at
>#> all rather than coming up with a different name for it which will
>#> avoid confusing cultural mystical identifications?

the term EQ was established usage 8 years prior to my 1st involvement in
1982 - IMO it is pointless quibbling about the name of an established
system that has been around since 1976.

In any case the argument against the term 'English Qaballa' may be
applied equally to the systems of correspondences of Mathers and Crowley
- or even Mirandola and Agrippa, (Cabala, Qabalah etc) which bear scant
relation to the Hebrew Rabbinic system despite the use of Hebrew
characters.

EQ is at least centred on a Holy Text, thus resembling the Hebrew
system in principle - if not form. I assert that EQ has more right to
the title than the 'christian' or 'hermetic' systems for that reason
alone.

IMO such terminological nit picking is futile, and even presumptuous. 

------------------------------------------------

~Subject: the term English Qaballa 

[jsk:]
># [posting] the 'EQ-FAQ'... as English Qaballa has been mentioned 
># once or twice. 

tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (hara):
>thanks for doing so.  as you can see I'm now attempting to operate
>philosophic inquiry for both sides of the issue, so now I am beginning
>to ask questions such that you can defend your terminological usage.
>this particular post mostly contains reviews your preferred 
>divinatory system.

I don't see it as a divinatory system - but as a Qaballa - ie a method
of scriptural exegesis for mystico-magical purposes connecting (on a
practical level) with 'the Path of the Names' in the hebrew system and
to ceremonial magick, among other things. 

 
># ...a Qabalah as I define it is essentially a magical and/or 
># mystical 'language' (or model if you prefer). 
>
>so it is not a culture or a culturally-derived system so much as
>a language or model. why reduce what once was a body of text and
>a cultural milieu in Judaism to a mere language-model? 

no-one has done that, EQ is meaningful precisely in the cultural milieu
of Thelemic culture and the rituals and practices of that tradition.


> why do you use the term 'Qabalah' to achieve this?

EQ was established usage eight years prior to my involvement in the
system -  

one might as well ask what motivated Mathers and AC et al to call their
system of ritual correspondences 'qabalah'?

a more important question: what point is served by futile terminological
nit-picking 22 years after the fact?

BTW, the spelling 'Qaballa' is generally used by EQ exponents, I agree
the proliferation of variants in terminology is unfortunate, I don't see
what you or I can do about it. Language has a life of it's own, savants
can contribute to such development, they rarely direct it.


>what does prepending
>the term 'English' really do in this regard?  isn't this somewhat
>confusing to those who are attempting to learn about Jewish
>mysticism?

that's life huh?

In any case, many portions of the 'Hebrew' Kabbalah that interest
*occultists* may not be of Hebrew origin, as opposed to Egyptian or
Greek - so insisting on Hebrew as a standard in occult 'qabalah' is
equally misleading.


># The test of EQ or any other proposed alpha-numeric system is
># nothing to do with a priori considerations, linguistic or 
># otherwise, but how successful it is as a 'magico-mystical 
># system'. EQ is strongly gematria based, but is the basis of 
># a gnostico-magical system of great breadth....

>why not call it "English Gematria"?  what more is there to
>what you're doing with EQ than gematria and gematria-related
>divination?

hebrew gematria is part of the Kaballah - so also with EQ

English Qaballa indicates more than gematria because there is more. For
which see the numerous publications, and more recent websites and
dedicated eq-elist with extensive archive.

I trust you wouldn't expect a Rabbi to type in the entire Zohar, along
with the Bahir and the Sepher Yetsirah etc. etc. to demonstrate there
was more to Kabbalah to gematria.

I will happily concede that many aspects of EQ have developed with major
imput from gematria methods - but this may once have been true of many
elements of the Kabbalah and magical practices derived therefrom. 

Even if EQ is exceptional in this respect, why shouldn't it differ from
past systems?


># Here followeth ye olde EQ FAQ, well overdue for a rewrite, but useful.

>reviewed here for the benefit of Usenet.  I didn't send it to the
>Occult Elist because I would prefer to discuss more conventional
>divination systems there and refrain from entering into 
>mystico-religious discussion until it becomes relevant.

your choice


># A  L  W  H  S  D  O  Z K V  G  R  C  
># 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 9 10 11 12 13 
># 
># N  Y   J  U  F  Q  B  M  X   I  T  E  P
># 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  22 23 24 25 26

>the series of letters is not of intuitively obvious derivation.

I put it to you that there is no such thing as an intuitively obvious
derivation of an order and value.

We accept that 'Vau' equals 6 in Hebrew because that is established
usage, we query why D should be so in English because it is new.
Possibly in the old days Sheba asked Solomon why the hebrew alphabet
replaced Nahash the snake with Nun the fish. It is somewhat arbitrary to
accept one system and object to another simply because of their
differing ages.

 
># ...There is thus no reason why E.'.Q.'. should adhere to the 
># same pattern as the systems which have had most currency since 
># the nineteenth century. On the other hand the vast majority of
># alternative English Gematrias proposed since E.'.Q.'.'s discovery have
># adopted the 1 to 26 "value" while proposing another "order" for the
># letters. 

>I see no reason aside from personal preferences to adopt such a
>differing sequence.  typically I suspect that the sequence will
>in fact conceal a desire on the part of those who recommend it
>to reach a specific "confirmation" or "miraculous result".

suspect what you like, I admit to being a cultist. The system was
derived by a mathematical permutation - not by arbitrary allocation.


>in this case you appear to be saying that this is *why* you've
>selected the system,

EQ is Thelemic in conception - it doesn't claim to have any application
outside that sphere. Since I am a Thelemic cultist EQ was interesting to
me when I encountered it - that is not what convinced me of its
validity.

Having seen many attempts to fulfill the same brief within the same
specific genre I am content that EQ is superior for reasons unknown to
me. 


>and I applaud you for your honesty and the
>approach of efficacy.

thanks, I'm a practical qaballist, ;-)


>my response is that generally we will be
>persuaded based on our religious sentiments or our logical
>sentiments and I prefer the latter more often than the former.

when it comes to assessing the reliability of a magical system I base my
decision on results. EQ provides them, as a magical system should IMO.

My attitude to concepts of 'god' etc is 'don't know, met too many' - 

Yes, I have a temperamental affinity with certain god forms, and the
Universe as I experience it behaves as if they exist. Whether this is
superstition or a proper use of occult symbols for occult purposes is a
moot question - I'm not enough of a philosopher to answer it, or enough
of a fool to believe a particular explanation, rather than consider it
useful in context.

 
># ...Several alternative gematrias do exist, but
># as yet none has produced a magical system. The question of belief is not
># appropriate to a true numerical system, numbers are a standard of
># immutable truth that rises above mythology and other limited paradigms.
>
>gematrias don't produce magical or mystical systems, people do. 

okay - lets talk that language if you like - fact is that EQ seems to be
more promising material  for such development than various alternatives,
since no system of comparable scope has so far emerged from them.

the schema appended to Liber Trigrammaton by no less a qabalist than AC
himself is no exception


>that
>few have created or perpetuated such systems based on "alternative"
>gematrias (to the Hebrew, perhaps, or to the Romanized 1-26) is more
>a testimony to the dearth of interest and/or imagination present in
>the occult community.  possibly the interest and imagination exist
>but are not expressed in mediums which inspire.

I don't accept that the discoverers of EQ were so far above average
that they did better with material of no more intrinsic value than the
others. A value judgement perhaps, but I stand by it.


># So far the alternative gematrias have indeed proved to be nothing more
># than systems of word association, or go little further than "proving"
># the discoverer is Crowley's successor! 
>
>I don't believe that anything can be 'proven' other than that a
>certain hypothesis is incorrect (i.e. disproof through the
>demonstration of an exception).

hence my qualifiers: 'so far' and use of inverted commas


>subjective proof in the form of
>a significant and unusual coincidence can be discovered in a
>wide variety of contexts, though it may take a special type of
>individual to achieve it.

yes, however it is not usual to argue that another order and value might
be applied to the hebrew alphabet, it is accepted on the arbitrary
grounds that it has been around a long time - the theological grounds by
which it once persuaded us (that god made the world out of hebrew
letters) is long since exploded. 

I accept EQ on the more pragmatic grounds that it works, and is relevant
in the specific cultus to which I belong. All else is secondary.


>what you are apparently trying to do here is to demonstrate
>through bringing to light 'significant coincidences of numero-
>linguistic gymnastics' that a particular system of Romanized
>gematria (with a peculiar letter sequence, 1-26) that this
>system is of 'greater import or value' than others yet
>discovered.  I contend that this will be persuasive for those
>who share your religious values (Thelemite:Crowleyan).

I don't mean to encourage any other use ;-)

I'll return to the remainder of this post tomorrow - I'm just back from
a major excursion and need some sleep.

93 93/93

ALWays

JSK.

----------------------------------
          
~Subject: the term English Qaballa 

># Since writing the above I have become familiar with the work of David
># Allen Hulse, whose unpublished work on English gematria ....
># Though not extending to a magical methodology in itself ... the 
># system he uses is the simplest of all [A-Z/1-26], which the 
># discoverers of E.'.Q.'. had tried and not found of interest, my 
># own researches also failed to find anything of interest in this 
># schema. Hulse on the other hand...  came at the problem from another
># direction, as may be seen in his "Key of it All" ....

># ...the serial order applied to ABC and its odd numbered 
># permutations ...is likely to be the most fertile area for 
># future discoveries. 

tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (hara):
>you are not being very specific. 

there is too much data involved to be specific on every point.
for more details on permutations see below


>I'd appreciate it if you would
>quote some of Hulse and/or _Key of it All_. 

Hulse is the author of KoiA volumes I, II and III (only the latter is
unpublished), it's a recent work, and approaching a reprint so I hear.
The author is not on the internet, by his own choice. I therefore refer
interested readers to his published work, which is of great interest.


>are you saying that
>a specific English gematric system will contain more interesting
>results than others?  if so, which one?  (I can't tell what you
>mean by 'odd-numbered permutations'.)  

ALW is a permutation of ABC, obtained by counting eleven letters from A,
which gives us L, then 11 letters from there, which gives us W etc..

AFK is a fivefold permutation, AJS is a ninefold permutation. I consider
these permutated alphabets to be more interesting (ie, productive) than
Hebrewed English or other arbitrary arrangements - and one or two of
them more interesting than most. EQ *so far* has proven the most
promising, but unless I'm way off base it looks to me as if some of the
other odd numbered permutations may prove interesting. Note that ABC is
a permutation of itself, since if we keep permutating ABC (and only odd
numbered counts will complete the cycle) we get back to it, and also
since permutating any series by one will produce the same series, ABC is
thus a permutation of ABC by one and twenty seven.

Here is a diagram of the odd numbered permutations 1 to 27:

   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1  A B C D E F G H I J  K   L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z
3  A D G J M P S V Y B  E   H  K  N  Q  T  W  Z  C F  I  L  O  R  U  X
5  A F K P U Z E J O T  Y   D  I  N  S  X  C  H  M R  W  B  G  L  Q  V
7  A H O V C J Q X E L  S   Z  G  N  U  B  I  P  W D  K  R  Y  F  M  T
9  A J S B K T C L U D  M   V  E  N  W  F  O  X  G P  Y  H  Q  Z  I  R  
11 A L W H S D O Z K V  G   R  C  N  Y  J  U  F  Q B  M  X  I  T  E  P
13 A N A N A N etc.
15 A P E T I X M B  ie 11fold/ALW order backwards from A
17 ARIZQ is AJS order backwards from A
19 7fold order back from A
21 5 fold order back from A
23 AX 3fold order back from A
25 AZ ABC backwards from A
27 return to ABC

these permutated orders are IMO more likely to bear fruit than arbitrary
placements, and the eleven fold order has done so in spades. I have a
suspicion the 5 and 9 fold permutations contain more promise than their
relatives - but their significance is likely to be of a very specialised
nature.

There is an astronomical and geometric significance in these patterns
that is way over my head - and very likely the heads of contemporary
occultists in general - though very meaningful in pre-existant systems
despite considerable neglect in the recent past. Interested parties are
referred to the eq-list and its archive.


>it appears that your system

not my system, save by adoption (both it of me and vice versa)

In 1976, when EQ was discovered I was attempting unsuccessfully to find
such a system at the very time someone else was succeeding. I am simply
an authorised spokesman who has been involved with the work at first
hand since 1982. 

EQ, like the OTO, is a fact of life in contemporary Thelema, though of
more recent vintage EQ is not my system any more than OTO is Bill
Heidrick's, or Crowley's for that matter.


>was chosen BECAUSE of these results, rather than based on some 
>more logical criteria (such as that numbers and letters occur in 
>particular orders).

;) logic was invented by an Irishman named Boole, as in Booleshit.

Numerical permutation follows remorseless mathematical logic. 

OTOH 'a priori' considerations of 'traditional' letter order and prior
usage are unlikely to give birth to a qabalah as opposed to a completely
synthetic and very closed system, or nothing at all. This is not the
case with EQ.

 
># Q. What simple proofs can you present that E.'.Q.'. is a 
># valid solution to the Qabalistic puzzles of the Book of the Law? 
>
>this indicates to me that you are operating from a Thelemic
>religious perspective.  I am familiar with that perspective and
>will offer commentary.  I find the Evul Book to be of little
>relevance to me personally other than a peculiar VSL.

then the purpose of EQ is not in your terms of reference. No blame.

The quest for such a system was thelemic from the get go - it was
prophesized in AL that such a system would emerge after AC's death -
thus EQ's purpose is specific to Thelema and its Holy Books, and its
results are meaningful specifically within that sphere - any meaningful
critique should at least consider these facts. Such a critique is
overdue, but it is difficult to imagine who might possess the necessary
qualifications.


># the simplest and most "accessible" indicators of E.'.Q.'.'s astonishing
># ability to detail Thelemic principles exactly without mindbending
># calculation or peculiar spellings!
>
>apologist and sensationalist. :>

yes and no - EQ allows only one value to each letter, and is thus much
more precise and difficult (if not impossible) to twist to suit a priori
opinion. It appears to have it's own POV which over-rides the prejudices
and preferences even of it's exponents, ie, there are recurring themes
within it which are transpersonal and implicit in the system.

Eq's growth has been phenomenal, compared to the stagnation of AC's
Trigrammaton order and value and other still-born schemata. Some
developments in particular are utterly unprecedented - and the rate of
development is itself dramatic, given that this is only the 23rd year of
its existence.

 
># Many Thelemites are accustomed to writing "Love is the law, love under
># will" as three 93's. The value of LOVE IS THE LAW, LOVE UNDER WILL by
># E.'.Q.'. is 279 or 3x93. Similarly "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
># of the law" = 386 which is 2x193.
>
>I didn't notice this was written by you before and it begins to make
>more sense to me.  an interesting numerolinguistic discovery.

one of a great many, this one is simply more accessible than others.

 
># The second chapter of the Book of the Law, gives the number of 
># "Had" as eleven, the value of HAD in E.'.Q.'.. 
>
>valuable to Thelemic religious, yes.

ie, valuable to those for whom it is intended - my point entirely.


># The phrase STRANGE DRUGS from AL has the value 143, the same value as
># the phrase DISTANT DRUG in Liber VII. This is a striking example of the
># accuracy of the gematria system, involving not only AL but the entire
># Class A literature.
>
>I don't understand the associative uniqueness here and why this
>specific example is of such import to you.

really?

the word 'drug' only occurs twice in the entire Class A, and the
expressions in which it occurs are of equal value. It has meaning
specifically within the context in which it appears - Thelemic cult
practice is illuminated thereby - I require little else from it.

 
># The Book of the Law injoins us to exceed by delicacy and drink by the
># eight and ninety rules of art. DELICACY = 98 by E.'.Q.'., no other
># reason has ever been presented for the number of "rules of art".
>
>again, lovely for Thelemic religious.

yes, and the Hebrew Kabbalah is 'lovely for Jewish religious', hardly a
criticism is it! ;-)

 
># The Thelemic Pentagram rituals frequently attribute Babalon to West and
># Water, while Aiwass/Aiwaz is frequently attributed to the direction of
># Air. BABALON = 65 = WATER, AIWAZ = 36 = AIR. 
>
>wasn't "BABALON" valued at 65 by Crowley and others? 

no, 


>were they using EQ?  very interesting results.

in context they come thick and fast - out of context there are also some
points of interest - but as a caretaker and spokesman I try to maintain
a level of 'aptness' which is not compulsory for others - though useful
practice for budding EQists IMO.


># The Counting Well process (briefly, value of word a times number of
># letters in word b and vice versa) produces other startling proofs.
>
>from where does this 'Counting Well' process derive? 

1st generation EQists - 


> who named it this?

the first usage was in reference to a verse in AL where the expression
'count well its name' occurs - the technique was first used to expound
this verse, as it evidently required something of the kind. It has since
been found relevant in other contexts. The technique is unique to EQ
AFAIK.


>I omit the derivations based on it because I have less
>interest in combinatory numerolinguistics aside from personal use
>as divination system.

whatever

 
># These simple proofs are outside the realm of coincidence and are
># unmatched by any alternative system. 
>
>they are examples which are valuable to the Thelemic religious,
>and are very interesting as examples of what may be achieved if
>one begins a thorough examination of all possible numerolinguistic
>systems.

I've examined a great many such - IME EQ is superior to all proposed
solutions to the question of an English Qaballa for Thelemic exegesis. 

I did not devise it, my own productions have been in every way inferior,
and so have all systems proposed as substitutes for EQ. Hulse showed
considerable talent in his use of ABC/123 - but IMO falls far short of
what has and can be achieved with EQ. 

My conclusion is that the mind of the gematria user is not the only
factor - I consider that:

a) some mathemagical systems possess latent patterns far superior to
arbitrary systems.

b) such are capable of turning the native talent of individual
qaballists to far better account than a purely arbitrary system.

c) the idea that a 'new qabalah' may only be produced by a Magister
Templi - as proposed by AC - seems to have some truth in it!


>I think claiming that they are "outside the realm of
>coincidence" is ridiculous and unfounded.  how will you ever
>begin to assess where this boundary lies?

the idea that all gematria results regardless of the system employed are
due solely to coincidence simply reflects a modern point of view formed
without experience of, or empathy for, the systems which it criticises. 

Not all systems are equal, and the operator is not the only factor
involved in making effective use of such a system - the qualities of the
system itself are important. This may be outrageous to modern thought,
but modern thought is often staggeringly superficial and complacent.

Be this as it may EQ is a modern system, as such it differs radically
from the relics of the past commonly employed. More questions arise from
a cursory examination and utilisation of EQ than any amount of time
spent in the museum of magick. I doubt that I possess the qualifications
necessary to answer them - or that I'll be around to do so when the
questions are properly formulated within an adequate terminology. 

This doesn't bug me! ;-)

blah blah blah

93 93/93

AL-Ways

-----------------------------------------------------

~Subject: the term English Qaballa 

tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (hara):
>so that its name should perhaps be "ALWHSDO" or "ALNY".
>compare "AIQ BEKR".

in some circles the 'order and value' is already referred to as 'Always
Does' from ALWHSDOZ. EQists frequently conclude correspondence with one
another with the word AL-Ways for that reason.

But EQ is more than an Order & Value, as may readily be seen by
referring to the primary sources.

So the excellent reason for retaining English Qaballa as a title is that
EQ *is* a Qabalah, not a system of gematria only. That gematria has
played a major role in developing more esoteric aspects of the system is
*possibly* a peculiarity of EQ. If so I make no apology for it. 

In any case the term EQ is in common usage, and likely to persist, so
while I agree the term (like any term) has limitations, it is futile to
expect any alteration at this point in it's development IMO. As EQ is
only two letters long I excuse any etymological inaccuracy (by no means
unique to this system) on the grounds of brevity.

93 93/93

ALWays
------------------------------------------ perms ------------------

93 Fra. 333,

hara (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com) writes:
>did you happen to post them to Usenet, and if not, may I do so
>prior to response? 

I didn't, but you most certainly may
(I'm a bit unclear on the procedure in use)

[...]

EQ is overdue for critique as a stage in development, but possibly this
is a sensitive area and must await a few obituaries first. ;-)

>please advise.

yes, send 'em on to the list by all means.

93 93/93

AL-Ways


JSK.

The Gnostic Alchemical Church of Typhon-Christ

http://members.aol.com/kiblah1/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/7770/

eq-list-subscribe@makelist.com

All events and institutions other than those 
portrayed in this Journal are fictitious

EOF
--------------------------------------
333
-- 
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (emailed replies may be posted); cc me replies;
http://www.abyss.com/tokus; http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatSPELLS.html