From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Runes (and Gematria)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 10:43:42 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

9207.27 e.v. 


Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.


Steve Cranmer writes:
   
Tagi, I like your English gematria.  I think I have seen something
like it, however, in _some_ book _somewhere_ (how's that for specifics!)


Response:

I'm very interested in finding out who else had done work with this type
of association system (based strictly on manifested English, rather than
on prior language associations - e.g. A, B, G, D,...).  I figure that
it is fairly obvious, though perhaps controversial, and that others must
be considering it or using it.  If anyone has references, I'd be grateful.
What I've come up with so far is my own design.


Steve:

I don't know, the whole 'selling point' for gematria -- and the whole
letter/rune/mystical-correspondence thing -- hinges for me on the antiquity,
or perhaps ORIGINALITY of the alphabet used.  For example the Greek,
Roman/English, and Russian (Cyrillic) alphabets are all derived from the
same proto-Semitic alphabet that eventually turned into Hebrew and Arabic.
Since it's possible to 'derive' where each letter in these alphabets came
from, I find it hard to NOT go back to the source.  But that's probably
just my scientific nature :-) !!  I've always had an interest in the
history of writing systems.


Response:

This is interesting to me.  I tend to tear apart magical systems and then
reassemble them in my own image.  What sells you on originality?
Why do you think that the source is more powerful?  What about your
scientific nature leads you to choose older systems?

Also, doesn't sanskrit factor into the evolution of our language somehow?
I've heard that the indo-europeans are in some way related to our culture
and I'm only beginning to find out how.  Thanks.


Steve:

Please don't get me wrong -- historical veracity has nothing to do with
originality!  While proto-Semitic, Sanskrit, and perhaps 'futhark' runes
may be in the class of 'original' alphabetic scripts, so are Tolkien's
elvish and John Dee's (Enoch's? Ave's?) Enochian!


Response:

Fascinating.  I've been playing with alphabets and concepts lately and
have seized quite strongly upon the idea of using Tolkien's elvish in
some manner.  If these are all 'original' in your mind, then why ISN'T
modern English original?


Steve:

There are also, of course, non-alphabetic scripts -- Egyptian hieroglyphs
(sort of), Mayan and Aztec glyphs, and syllabic scripts like Cretan Linear
B and Cypriotic.  Hmm...  a set of correspondences based on these would
have to be more 'fluid' and not as 'one-to-one' as with an alphabetic
script.  I wonder if it has ever been tried?


Response:

Could you elaborate on this?  Why would the correspondences have to be
more 'fluid'?  What about ideographs (i.e. Chinese/Japanese)?  How would
gematria work with these?  Can you explain more clearly for those of us
who are not familiar with the glyphs you mention how they differ from
the 'alphabets' and why it would be more difficult to use them?  What
makes some forms of words more difficult for correspondence than others?

I have little understanding of other languages BESIDES English and a very
minimal experience with gematria.  Keep this in mind.  Thanks.



Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.


I am I!

Fr. Nigris