From: cranmer@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Runes (and Gematria)
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:29:59 EDT

Hi Tagi! 

 You write...
>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.

As I seem to recall, the book I saw was in the (shudder) Numerology
section at Borders Book Shop in Philadelphia.  It seemed bent on unifying
Hebrew, Greek, and English gematria all in one 'neat' package.  In my
opinion, it tried to unify too much : it attemped to squeeze each alphabet
into a grid of XX squares (20? 25? 30?  I don't recall), and fill in the
blanks with word-final forms or discarded letters.  In the case of English,
I think it compressed I/J and U/V/W into one letter, and other such
superficial bawlderdizations.

>>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.
> 
>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?

Hmmm... I guess when I see "A" (and try to derive some esoteric meaning
from it), I inevitably see "alpha", which inevitably leads me to see
"aleph."  I've been familiar too long with the history (as far as we know
it) to ignore it, at least consciously.

Believe me, however, I have torn apart traditional Hebrew-letter/Tarot
correspondences!  But there's a whole 'nother post in that....

>Why do you think that the source is more powerful?  What about your
>scientific nature leads you to choose older systems?

I don't necessarily think the source is more powerful.  If I was presented
two unknown alphabets, and told that alphabet 1 is derived from alphabet 2,
I think that I would explore both and make choices aesthetically. 
Maybe it's the fact that our present alphabet has a *known* history that
leads me to discount it as an "occult" (re: hidden) source.  I think it's
neat that no-one will ever know WHY the Semitic alphabet is in the order
that it is.  The "magickal" explanation jumps out at me there.

>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.

The language, yes.  The alphabet (and it may be a syllabary - I'm not sure)
I don't think has any accepted link with European ones.

>>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!
> 
>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?

Okay, maybe 'original' isn't the right word.  Maybe I mean 'without-a-known-
history.'  And Tolkien's tengwar may not be as pristine as many may think!
In Jim Allan's _An_Introduction_To_Elvish_ (not an easy book to find!!),
there is a chapter on a possible source.  I can't find my copy right now,
but I believe that there was a fellow in the 1700's that tried to come
up with either (1) a new shorthand, or (2) a phonetic teaching alphabet.
Either way, it looks a lot like the chart of the tengwar in the Lord of
the Rings!
 
>>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?
> 
>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.

Well, I guess a working knowledge in the language for which the script
is used is the first thing.

These scripts are "non-alphabetic" in that each glyph does not stand for
one 'phoneme' as we define them.  Chinese is an excellent example - if
I ever had the time to learn a language for esoteric/magickal purposes,
it would be Chinese.  Each ideogram stands for, well, an idea.  One is
much more bound to the language than when using alphabetic scripts - i.e.
the letter E can be used in the words LOVE, HATE, and INDIFFERENCE. If you
want to 'build' words esoterically with letters (like Crowley did with
words like LAShTAL, THELEMA, AGAPE, etc.) you have to use the correspond-
ences for each letter and build up a meaning for the word.  But for
ideograms, it is all thrown at you at once.  Neither way is 'better' or
'worse', of course, but one must work with them in a different way.

In ancient Egyptian, they used combinations of alphabetic and syllabic
characters with 'determinatives' - which are ideograms placed at the end
of the word to convey additional meaning.  This is an interesting
combination of both concepts, and is deserving of further study.
____________________________________________________________________________
   "Hold your fire -- Keep it burning bright...."

                                  Steve Cranmer
                                  cranmer@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu