From:    Khephera                               Area: MagickNet
To:      Falcon                                 28 Jun 96 05:42:42
Subject: revelations                            UpdReq 

On Jun 13 06:00 96, Falcon of 93:9200/3 wrote:
K>> that's fine.  What bothers me is that we are discussing things of a
K>> philisophical and subjective nature- yet you are telling me I'm
K>> "wrong" with every word that comes from you.
F> sorry, I do have a fixed definition for "right" and "wrong" and according 
to 
F> those you can be wrong on subyective matters, e.g. if your results do not 
F> fit to the sources.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fit to the sources".  If you get no results, 
then you are doing something wrong.  If you do, then you are doing something 
right.  That's all there is to it-  anything else is pure Dogma.
Blessed Be, may Yahweh and His Asherah guide and keep thee,
Ar ReX Em SeXem Eref Neter Au-a
Rx
Khephera


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Khephera                               Area: MagickNet
To:      Falcon                                 28 Jun 96 05:45:22
Subject: words                                  UpdReq 

On Jun 17 18:38 96, Falcon of 93:9200/3 wrote:
K>> And this, in turn, illustrates one of my earlier points that words
K>> with differnt histories- yet similar meanings (Hathor and Ishtar are
K>> very alike) can sometimes end up sounding alike.  But, this isn't by
K>> any design.  It seems to be a kind of cosmic-consciousness kind of
K>> thing....:)
F> I'd be careful if I were you. There are as much examples that oppose your 
F> theory, even between closely connected languages. German/English has a few 
F> very good examples like german "bekommen" and english "become", which have 
F> quite different meanings. (ever heard a german in a restaurant say: "I'd 
F> like to become a beaf steak?")
In these instances, the concept doesn't apply.  Something like Gematria is 
what I have often called "Arguing backwards from the point".  It's a method 
of practical application, rather than a rule to be adhered to.
Take, for instance, "Lilith" and "Lailah".  These two words are closely 
connected mystically...even though not at all historically.  There is a use 
for such a connection in Ceremony.  If Lailah did not mean "night", then it 
would be tossed out as not important in relation to Lilith.  Unless, that is, 
some Mage somewhere found some kind of relation.  That being found, Lilith 
and Lailah could be related after all- even if Lailah meant "wagon wheel"- as 
far as that one Mage was concerned.
F> Think a second about the sheer number of sounds that a typical language 
F> produces. It is almost guaranteed that some words will sound almost as some 
F> words in another language, and it is quite probable that some of those have 
F> similiar meanings.
Sure.  And you can add other languages in that as well.  And, if a Mage finds 
a use for relating any of them, then so be it for that Mage.  It's like the 
Gematria of adding up the values of words.  How many Hebrew words add up to 
970?  Probably thousands.  And, if any of it helps, then it's used.  If not, 
it's ignored. 
Blessed Be, may Yahweh and His Asherah guide and keep thee,
Ar ReX Em SeXem Eref Neter Au-a
Rx
Khephera


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718