Jeffrey,
Now that I look at it again, I had indeed seen the diagram of "The
Reflection of the Elements Down the Tree" before. My mind was working
against me because I was trying to figure out directional
correspondences. Do you happen to know if the sefirotic system has any
directional correspondences?
Thanks,
Matt
On 26-Jun-06, at 5:44 PM, Jeffrey S. Kupperman wrote:
> Matt,
>
> The sefirotic elemental system works, roughly, thusly: the sefirot
> along the middle pillar, with the exception of Malkhut, are associated
> with the element of air, Malkhut is earth. Fire and water cross back
> and forth on the two side pillars. Fire is associated with Chokmah,
> Gevurah and Netzach, water with Binah, Chesed and Hod. You will find
> this in volume three, page 86, of the Complete GD (I'm looking at a
> 5th printing from 1994, I don't know if previous printings are
> different).
>
> re: the four winds. on pg 283 of Regardies The Golden Dawn, in the
> paper on the ritual of the pentagram it reads:
>
> The elements vibrate between the Cardinal points for they have not an
> unchangeable abode therein, though they are allotted to the Four
> Quarters in their invokation [sic] in the Ceremonies of the First
> Order. This attribution is derived from the nature of the winds. For
> the Easterly wind is of the Nature of Air more especially. The South
> Wind bringeth into action the nature of Fire. West winds bring with
> them moisture and rain. North winds are cold and dry like Earth. The
> S.W. wind is violent and explosive - the mingling of the contrary
> elements of Fire and Water. The N.W. and S.W. winds are more
> harmonious, uniting the influence of the two active and passive
> elements.
>
> Er, to cross index, this is on page 12 of volume 4 of the Complete GD.
> That same section goes on to discuss the cardinal directions and the
> elements, which is brought up again in the next paper on the hexagram.
>
> peace
> -j
>
> Matt Habermehl wrote:
>> Jeffrey,
>> Very helpful - thanks.
>> I have a version of Book One of Agrippa's sitting here beside me, but
>> it's not Tyson's edition - though I think I can get Tyson's from a
>> friend. I will most certainly check that out. Also, I will review the
>> hexagram ritual. I'm not sure where to look regarding the attributes
>> given to the lower sefirot, but I have Regardie's Complete GD System
>> here, so I'll give that huge volume a browse ;-)
>> Now, you mention the one according to the for winds... Is there a
>> place in any GD literature where it explicitly says that this is how
>> they've arranged the elements?
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> matt
>>
>> On 26-Jun-06, at 4:46 PM, Jeffrey S. Kupperman wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> There is a fairly good overview of this sort of elemental theory in
>>> Tyson's edition of the Three Books of Occult Philosophy (appendix
>>> III). In this he goes over both Aristotle's and Ocellus' quite
>>> similar thoughts on the matter. Its relatively in depth for an
>>> appendix and you might want to give it a look over.
>>>
>>> It might also be useful to point out that the GD, when conjoined
>>> with the RR et AC, used at least three different elemental systems,
>>> one according to the four winds, on according to the attributes
>>> given to the lower sefirot and an astrological one using the
>>> cardinal signs, which is found in the hexagram rituals.
>>>
>>> peace
>>> -jeffrey
>>>
>>> Matt Habermehl wrote:
>>>> Thanks Jeremy,
>>>>
>>>> I've heard this idea before too, and I wonder about it. Most
>>>> specifically, I wonder about relating the qualities of hot, cold,
>>>> moist and dry to fire, earth, water and air respectively.
>>>> I'm about to plunge into more research to confirm this, but I
>>>> believe that - at least in Aristotle - the dominant qualities of
>>>> the elements were as follows:
>>>> Earth - Dry
>>>> Water - Cool
>>>> Air - Moist
>>>> Fire - Warm
>>>>
>>>> I realize that this is a counter-intuitive arrangement, but it
>>>> works excellently in the elemental square of opposition.
>>>> Water is cool and moist
>>>> Earth is dry and cool
>>>> Fire is warm and dry
>>>> Air is moist and warm
>>>>
>>>> If the primary qualities of the elements were as Ptolemy's winds:
>>>> Earth - Cool
>>>> Water - Moist
>>>> Air - Dry (?)
>>>> Fire - Warm
>>>>
>>>> Then no matter what the secondary quality was for each element, Air
>>>> would still need to be a dry element.
>>>> This, unfortunately, conflicts with the GD's first knowledge
>>>> lecture, which lists the elements with their standard qualities,
>>>> and Air as "Heat and Moisture". Now, you did point out that Air was
>>>> a special case, so there may be a complication here that I'm not
>>>> aware of...
>>>>
>>>> But if the Aristotelian primary qualities are assigned to Ptolemy's
>>>> winds, we would have:
>>>> Water = North
>>>> Air = West
>>>> Fire = South
>>>> Earth = East
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, this is the mystery I'm looking to solve by finding out
>>>> the origins of the GD system. Thanks for your input!!!
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26-Jun-06, at 2:03 PM, Jeremy Glick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Matt Habermehl wrote:
>>>>>> Does anyone know of any sources that discuss the rationale or the
>>>>>> history of the adoption of the Golden Dawn's directional
>>>>>> elemental attributions (Earth = N, Air = E, Fire = S, Water = W)
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt,
>>>>>
>>>>> The rationale I remember hearing is that it corresponds to the
>>>>> classical four winds, and this seems to fit. Ptolemy, for
>>>>> example, writes in Tetrabiblos (the classic text on astrology)
>>>>> about the four winds, called Apeliotes (east), Notus (south),
>>>>> Zephyrus (west), and Boreas (north): see
>>>>> http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/
>>>>> Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#10.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, these don't correspond exactly to the elemental attributions,
>>>>> since Ptolemy doesn't use the four elements model, but rather the
>>>>> four properties of hot, dry, cold, and moist. Still, he states
>>>>> that Notus is "hot and rarifying", Zephyrus is "fresh and moist",
>>>>> and Boreas is "cold and condensing". The only major point of
>>>>> divergence is that he refers to Apeliotes as "without moisture and
>>>>> drying in effect", when Air is typically thought of as being hot
>>>>> and moist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, the correspondence is pretty close, and I'd imagine that
>>>>> this is the source of the attributions, though I don't have any
>>>>> direct evidence to support that. So I guess this isn't much help
>>>>> in figuring out the history of the Golden Dawn's use. For what
>>>>> it's worth, the Wikipedia article on the four cardinal winds
>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemoi) doesn't mention any
>>>>> classical connection to the elements, though that doesn't mean too
>>>>> much by itself. Anybody know for certain?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also thought I'd take this opportunity to introduce myself,
>>>>> since I haven't posted to the list before. My name's Jeremy
>>>>> Glick, and I'm a soon-to-be grad student in psychology, focusing
>>>>> on neural network models of mind. The study of magic is a side
>>>>> pursuit of mine, one which I greatly enjoy, but it's not where
>>>>> most of my academic credentials lie. I hope to learn a great deal
>>>>> from the conversations on this mailing list; I've enjoyed what
>>>>> I've read so far. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours,
>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|