Monthly Archives: February 2011

As I have been thinking about Aleister Crowley’s Book of Thoth and his thoughts on the relation of the Tarot to the Tree of Life, I found I disagreed with him on one point – he put the Emperor (IV) as the connection between Netzach (Bliss) and Yesod (Essence of Being), and The Star (XVII) as the connection between Chokmah (Original Harmony) and Tiphareth (Experience). Now, his argument is based on linguistic and numerological arguments that go way over my head, but I am looking at this purely through my own philosophical standpoint.

To me, just thinking on the surface(ish) side of things, the connection between the Sefirot of Chokmah and Tiphareth should be representative of the active and powerful emanation of Chokmah – commonly associated with the male (as opposed to Binah, the passive, receptive female where creation occurs after receiving Chokmah’s seed – note that these terms are not representing what I think of men and women, but is representing symbolism primarily drawn from the Tanakh – or for those less knowledgeable of Judaism, the rough equivalent of the Bible‘s Old Testament) – exerting its will on the consciousness that is attained through experience (Tiphareth). This will to me would be better represented by the Emperor, not the Star – the Emperor as the “father” figure, the single stern authority who provides order from above. Additionally, putting the Emperor here would put him opposite The Lovers (VI) – which represents duality and intimacy, and in a way reflects the spirit of Binah, as the connection where Crowley places The Star should represent Chokmah.

One could argue that the Star provides light from above as a form of symbolism, but I see that as more of the symbolism of the Sun’s (XIX) role – and the Sun in its current placement is opposite the Emperor; would it not be better for the Star, which can be argued to have a similar function, to be opposite its closest example? The best placement for divine light from above, however, is the connection from Kether (The Spiritual Seed/Emanation) to Tiphareth, which is represented by the Priestess (II). This is fitting, as the Priestess serves not only as a passive figure, but also as the mysterious secrecy that lies behind the veil; she herself as a figure can be seen as Kether, the veil the abyss (in which dwells Daath and separates the supernal triangle from Tiphareth), and the viewer as the consciousness of Tiphareth. She, as a priestess, is herself “divine” in a sense, and also at the same time by her human nature more earthy and conscious in that sense; she then very well represents the bridge from the spirit to the “center” of the Tree of Life.

The Star, on the other hand, currently occupies the Emperor’s positions in Crowley’s layout, between Chokmah and Tiphareth, as mentioned earlier. The Star would better fit between Netzach and Yesod – Bliss and Essence of Being. Why? The star represents a calm serenity and a sort of dreaminess – that which is associated with bliss – and also with a sort of bringing down from above (just look at the image on the Thoth cards of Nuit, bridging the gap between high and low) and a sort of guidance, but in a different way than the Emperor’s stern imposing of order. More of a nudging or actual guide than a bring of order, which the power of Chokmah seems to say to me. The more gentle “Bliss” aspect of Netzach, coming down to guide Yesod (Crystallization and Essence of Being), and providing the best possible help for what can be argued (except in the case of Swords) is the best of the Sefirot. The additional hunt that Nuit as a Goddess is doing the guiding also seems more fit for this happier, “better” connection.

At least to me. Crowley had his points, and from my more limited view, I disagree – plus this puts the Roman numerals back in order. I have adopted this variant form to use in my tarot readings now.

After a recent conversation with a fellow doomsayer (I myself am an optimistic pessimist), I began thinking about the many myriad ways in which humanity is doomed, helped along by my fellow doomsayer:

-Wealth inequality is growing, leading a polarization of society and mass oppression. Not fun.

-Corporations are gaining more power, and those not at the top are working more for less, becoming little more than machines – even ignoring the humanitarian implications, this also means that the arts will die as fewer will appreciate them.

-Asteroids could hit us at any moment.

-Supervolcanoes.

-Climate change! This is real; it’s hard to argue with the evidence. More severe weather comes along with this; and natural disasters. Not to mention global warming will likely kill us if we keep going at this rate.

-The people in charge of the world shouldn’t be. They are selfish and completely invested in the status quo of the system. The people able to initiate real change won’t do it because it isn’t in their best interests. Also these people tend to be older, and so care less about the future that they won’t be in.

-People on the whole are rather dim and thick-witted. And easily led and manipulated.

-Viruses and other diseases are growing in resistance and becoming pretty scary and unstoppable – mostly our fault, too.

-Aliens could arrive at any time.

-We are dependent upon very fragile devices (electronics) that could in theory we wiped out by a single exceedingly strong electromagnetic disturbance (read: sun).

-We are completely and utterly dependent on finite natural resources that are already ridiculously hard to obtain and harm the environment, yet our great and wise leadership doesn’t even begin to really consider alternatives because it will hurt the wealthy rich people in charge.

-Overpopulation.

-The “greatest superpowers” in their own ways are heartless corporate systems with no real concern for human rights.

-We kill each other all the time. If nature doesn’t do it, we will – just look at nuclear arsenals! Why do we have these again?

So, what do we do? I’m not sure we can do anything, but our best bet is to deal with the energy crisis first – that’ll cut out our dependence on finite resources, help cut down climate change, and give us time to fix the rest of it. It also would weaken the oil and coal companies’ hold on the world. Of course, in order for this to even semi-realistically happen, we need “good” leaders actually looking to the far future and beyond their own self-interests…

Have a wokling to make you feel better.

I recently watched Percy Jackson and the Olypmians: The Lightning Thief (I had read Rick Riordan’s books well before – go read them if you have the time, they’re a very good read), and was noticing how little of the book’s nuances the movie captured. I then thought about the differences between the two mediums (book and movie), and now have a greater appreciation for those involved in movie production and actually do good work – like the Lord of the Rings movie team as a prime example.

The primary limiting factor of the movie medium is, I believe, the timespan in real-time. Books are not (usually) meant to be sat down and read all at once; movies (generally) are. This gives books a considerably greater amount of freedom in terms of the length of what they are expressing than films do. They can include more scenes, better looks into the actors’ thoughts, and generally develop characters better than most movies, limited as they are to usually about two to two and a half hours. Those that can pull off plot and character development in a movie on par with that of books deserve to be commended. Of course, this is easier with longer movies and especially with series (Lord of the Rings, anyone?), but some shorter films do a good job.

Of course, then, one can’t really effectively compare the book with the movie, simply because unless we wanted a ten hour movie (which most don’t – though I would!), there will be serious cuts that will hurt the final product. Movies that are not based heavily off of books tend to be better, I have noticed, largely because (I think) A) They aren’t being compared to a book, which will be better, and B) They aren’t trying to cram what was meant to be a ten-hour plot into two hours. This certainly was apparent with Percy and the Olympians.

Further thought on this matter led me to consider the adage “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Of course, this then leads to the question “How many words is a movie worth?” The simple answer, of course, would be:

WordWorth = (Frames in Movie) x 1000 Words/Frame

or

W=1000F

Now, considering a fairly standard number for frames per second is 24 (source), this means that:

F=24l (l=length of movie in minutes)

Which, then, means that:

W=1000 x 24l=2400l

Therefore, the amount of words a movie is worth is equal to approximately 2400 times the length of the movie in minutes – but this does not take into account the motions or sounds! Motions could be argued to have been accounted for in the frames, but I disagree – swiftness and speed of motion certainly counts for something more. Therefore, we add in the motion variable.

W=2400l + m

The motion variable, I have decided, will be equal to a number from 1 to 10, judged by the viewer: a ’10’ being a fast-paced action movie, a ‘5’ being a moderately paced movie, and a ‘1’ being a still picture (this assumes that more movement = more value in words). However, this tiny value should add more – therefore, I propose that we multiply this value by 1000 – which also gives us the effect of, for a single picture (with a length of zero minutes and a motion variable of one) have the worth in words equal one thousand, which is necessary if we are to justify the formula, as this is the assumption that it is based on. So we have, then:

W=2400l + 1000m

And now for sound. There are two types – spoken words and other sounds. Spoken words, counting emphasis and the like, I suggest be equal to a speaking value of s. This value will be equal to the number of words spoken. The rest will be represented by the noise factor (d), which will be equal to the average decibel volume of the noise when the television volume is at 25, multiplied by a number from 1 to 5, representing variation in the sound. In this case, zero will be equal to silence, and 5 to lots of variation, and 1 equal to no variation – let this be called the noise variable (n). Leading us to…

W=2400l + 1000m + s + dn

And lastly, we must account for any words written on screen – not counting subtitles. This is merely equal to the number of words that appear (this can be justified with the assumed adage, as a picture with words on it is worth more than one with none), and shall be w (lowercase). So we have:

W=2400l + 1000m + s + dn + w

Unfortunately, this formula is based on what I believe is a flawed assumption: that a picture is worth a thousand words. There are things in a picture – and therefore also in a movie without narration, which tend to be awkward, that the written word can convey but the images can’t. Inflection, noise, environment, and inner thoughts and feelings can be conveyed by both, and in some cases (inner thoughts/emotions mostly) be conveyed better by print. Then books can also, through word choice in descriptives, convey implications and symbolism in word better than the film – which makes it superior.

Books also, by virtue of having to interpret words, are an active process, while watching a movie is a passive one – as such, books stimulate more thought and hone one’s mind more. It is also usually easier to read a book in a better environment – which leads me to conclude that the formula is erroneous, and as symbolism can show, a word is worth a thousand pictures.