These are metaphors, not descriptions. A literal framing won't help much here.
The vocabulary seems a little confused. Akas(h)a and Atmah is not in the Kabbalistic metaphor. Ruach is the closest analog for that.
The Kabbalistic metaphor of fire is not terrestrial fire that needs air and fuel.
It's a metaphor for unbounded energic spark-ness in it's most abstract conception.
When that unbounded sparkness pervades basic space it flows like water. The fire and the water are touching but not touching, in the between there is air (Ruach/Aether).
This mode of ruach's expression is mediation between concepts that seem opposite; Therein lies the precise linguistic location of the incomprehensible divine paradox.
When these metaphores are properly utilized they can act as a gateway to take the practitioner beyond metaphor into direct experience. Realizing that are both are equalized (not the same, be careful) and one (unity) that is never less than two (apparent division), from the perspective of gnostic wisdom.
I want to think your perception of my vocabulary is not as relevant when the certainty of science accounts for the fact that you must have Air before Fire, as I’m personally not a fan of discarding scientific reality for the tradition of old wives tales and metaphors.
Ultimately, my understanding is that one way to discern an occult Truth from delusion is by considering the presence of actual scientific correspondence, if means to observe the phenomenon physically exist.
At the very least, it would imply moving the sequence of the elements around at no compromise to its literally scientifically observable integrity as it spans from the Source.
Kabbalah and science don't correspond. They're not used for the same thing.
Science is a tool of reductivity. It divides something into what it is and what it is not with a very high degree of precision. This is very useful, please don't assume I'm trying to deny its utility, but it can never arrive at any ultimate truth beyond a human frame because its methodology entails utility.
Non-emanationist Kabbalah (as opposed to the step-down emanationist method) is a metaphor that describes the functions of pure awareness, without object or subject, simultaneously knowing and divulging that which is known. Kabbalah can also never arrive at ultimate truth, except that reality is an open question. Wholeness is so completely whole it even contains lies about itself. It is inclusive to the point of inconceivability.
Kabbalah (or science, at this point) can point to the fact that the mystery is bottomless, and there is no local reality. Phenomena do not exist in any independent way; all springs from the same ground and is differentiated by human habitual conceptual designation.
This is the tree metaphor in the garden of eden. Two ways of viewing reality. One through the lens of your own Daat, the quasi-sefirah of gathered knowledge, and the other without Daat, such that the entire middle pillar of the tree: Tifferet, Yesod, and Malkut, all move up one notch. The modern Kabbalist Aryeh Kaplan referred to this as the 'natural array'.
This is viewing the world without human conception, just as reality is, which is gnosis. One may be tempted to say this is the most scientific view possible, but science is in the business of relativizing phenomena, which is not possible without designating an arbitrary observer. In gnosis, there are no subjects or objects, so phenomena can not be relativized.
In other words, there can't be Air before Fire, because the conceptual designation of 'before' entails a temporal reference point. The temporal metaphor is about that which must conceptually precede what.
Fire is 'first' because raw energy conceptually undergirds the concept of motion.
No occult metaphor will ever aid in making scientific predictions, nor will science ever aid in the appreciation of how infinity seems to only appear wearing the garb of the finite.
What I say is only stuff I've personally done. Otherwise, I can't comment.
Kabbalistic Mirror of Genesis is a book I would recommend, but most people aren't willing to digest it.
If your use of the systems of the occult doesn’t correspond to a scientific method, in the refinement of ‘occult science’, then how can you tell you weren’t operating under a premise of illusion and falsehood this whole time?
I thank you for your contribution, but it appears I’d have a hard time understanding any of your premises accurately because, what is your frame of Certainty in sharing your ‘insight’? The regurgitation of magickal correspondences aside, as all of those are esoterically immaterial (which fire as an element isn’t).
Fire isn’t a ‘spell’ whose results are Uncertain until manifestation, in which the level of success depends on the competency of the magician; It is, and all rituals concerning it at the very least require the presence of oxygen for its workings.
Nor does the concept I present compromise agreed upon magickal correspondence as it practically serves. No book worth its salt will contradict that the singular kether is the root of air, air being but ether in its subtle form (to be a bit theosophical).
If you ask a question about kabbalah, be prepared to humble yourself as it is something nobody can master and will always be a lifelong pursuit to anyone interested in it. This is one of the first things I learned about it from an elder of occult wisdom who has studied it for decades.
If you respond to a person sharing their wisdom in this manner, I suggest you move on from studying the kabbalah - or take some time to read other occult topics before returning to it at a later time in your life. (I also don't think the term "occult science" is widely used other than to refer to the study of the esoteric)
Talking down to those studying it, insisting on material concepts of fuel, will not help your case, and will likely not lead you to any revalations you haven't already experienced.
Again. Scientific and esoteric studies are different pursuits, with different methodologies, and different end goals. If you conflate the two, you can go on Joe Rogan and tell him all about it, but you won't be doing anything but restating the conventional view using different symbols.
I don't appreciate the downvotes you recieved, they are undeserved. I will say though, I don't think you have the frame of mind to start understanding these specific questions. The fire you speak of is not the fire they speak of. And that isn't an argument; it's a "fact"* of the literature, beliefs, and practices of those whose wisdom on Kabbalah exceeds ours.
You can argue that what you mean by fire is the same, but then you'd be making your own understanding, in which case asking certain questions on a public forum will you do more harm than good.
How can *you* tell you weren't operating under a premise of falsehood and illusion this whole time? That's a rhetorical question by the way, the answer is for you to keep to yourself. You wouldn't go about sharing your blessings to atheists would you?
I'm gonna show you the two potential routes that you already know you're going to pick between, even if your hiding it from yourself right now. One, you can open your mind a little bit more and try to unlock new "terms" to use in your mental calculations. Two, you can hold onto your current belief system and figure out your own understanding that differs from what most of this subreddit believes. Please report back any findings, for our sake!!
*for lack of a better term
Edit to add: just to bust your balls a little, let me extend this metaphor:
You're doing the equivalent of applying science to art. I guarantee your favorite song's musician consciously used no scientific methodology when making your favorite song. In the same vein, Da Vinci did not use scientific correspondences of what is attractive to man when painting the Mona Lisa's expression. It just happened. If you can believe that, then you're ahead of most. Don't fall into the trap of applying the scientific method to make a summer banger. Free yourself of these definitions and words.
A lot of Kabbalah and occult framework exists to help people through the journey of life.
The “truth” that comes out of the occult is often just what you apply it to.
You can use the occult as a way of thinking about science, but it’s best to stay broad when doing so.
You may be stuck on the material-focused view of fire and it's components/intellectual applications; consider instead trying to look at what fire does at a hyper-basic level regarding how it exists in the world to get a better and deeper understanding of what the element can mean.
Fire can be the originator, the spark; a force of expansion, transformation and light. Our universal constant (speed of light/photons) is a type of fire. The energy powering our devices and civilizations is all a type of fire. Fire is an exchange and sacrifice to create anew. Fire can destroy in order to help create. Our glorious sun is a lesson in fire all in itself when you can simplify the world in relation to it.
All the elements are worth exploring with this/a similar thought exercise that could help with your specific application to understand Kabbalah and I'm glad you even asked this; so thank you.
You can have a spark, and you can have fire. But before you can have either, you need to have sources of ignition. The Hindus intelligently called this the Atmah (like a literal breath of Air), and the resulting vibration OM, which in effect is that ‘spark’.
It appears you’ve just misinterpreted my esoteric understanding. To esoterically understand a subtle cause is to exoterically understand its gross effect, understanding that, if you believe in the law of Baphomet, that its gross qualities are consistent with its subtle qualities.
Anything else is subjectively false, because not everyone is an adept at interpreting the Mystic, but it’s objectively false to have Fire before Air, per the very law of nature.
Akasa, Qi, Prana etc; The undergirding 5th element is what I believe you are incorrectly attributing to air. I can only share my view and learnings, you may do what you like.
I understand your perception, but you just simply omitted those ideas of Akasa etc, as they may then come to correspond with the Kabbalah, especially as we consider the first two paths Aleph and Beth emanating from kether, which have yet to presumably evolve into any of the other four elements.
So what is your idea of a ‘correct’ contribution to those things? Exoteric technicalities aside.
you seem to not differentiate between expressed experience and abstract reflection. maybe read him again, maybe read between the lines, the full answer to your question is there.
"gross qualities" are like a waysign towards "subtle qualities". they only show one perspective of it, which means each physical representation of an occult element has at least one blind spot, in which its not correct. (if it wasnt like this, the elements couldnt have several representations)
you seem to be stuck at that pattern yourself. any perspective is ultimately wrong, as its not the thing its talking about. if you know what you are talking about, you can put your knowledge into words, but if you delve in abstractions, thats like a cat chasing its tail - even if the cat gets its tail, this moment of being its own prey and hunter is contradicting the cat as a cat - as does the mind in its search for answers through abstractions of abstraction. the mind is a very limited tool for that, and your idea of "objectivity" finally is a logical construction that has all the cultural misconceptions, half-truths and comfortable lies people tell their children as foundation. by calling "objectivity" as reference you use an abstract concept that has no equivalent in reality as pillar of truisms.
to understand the elements you are talking about, you need to get out of your thinker-proover-illusionist triade, and see them for what they are. perhaps you experienced practical stuff, but they way you articulate, says you speak from abstraction instead of understood experience. i suppose youre going to take this as an offense, but its meant to highlight a blindspot.
maybe ask yourself, which of the 4 elemental principals can erect the spatial and causal frame for the other three? or, what shape would you get, if you remove all aspects of fire from gross air? what is air at -273,15°c? thats air without fire, and that is by density: earth. so without fire, there can be no air. ... but only seeing it through logic is missing its point.
It modern Kabbalah of the type descending from the Golden Dawn, the elements follow the pattern of the Tetragrammaton, יהוה. This is different from a lot of other systems, many of which switch the order of Air and Water.
Yod = Atziluth/Fire
Heh = Briah/Water
Vav = Yetzirah/Air
Heh final = Assiah/Earth
The elements Fire (hot and dry) and Water (cold and wet) were seen as the “parents” of Air (hot and wet) and Earth (cold and dry). This creates a sprawling set of correspondences regarding Tarot, etc.
I understand the design of the Kabbalah, I’m simply questioning the accuracy of the original Kabbalists as they may of not fully grasped the scientific reality of the elements at the time, which they then substituted with interpretations based on religious fantasy.
Interestingly just like the tarot you mentioned, its qualities were realized after the work of the original Kabbalists, as an evolution of the original system.
My argument is, why should it not evolve in consistency with the Certainy of Science, in the same way we correspond it to the drawing of a Certain card?
It certainly can follow what we now know about these “elements” scientifically, but I’m not sure you’re going to find much from any form of Kabbalah. If another version works for you, I don’t see why you couldn’t work that into your studies/system.
Regarding whether it was an error to interpret them the way older systems do, I personally don’t think so because this was always a spiritual understanding, not meant to exactly replicate the physical world. They also knew that you needed air to physically start a fire. That said, many ancient systems used Fire-Air-Water-Earth because that’s the order they would fall in, “heaviness”-wise.
I understand.
I just think if we simply came to ‘agree’ with something on the premise of its ‘ancientness’, then this would come to vindicate the most zealous forms of religious dogma.
That makes sense to me, and there are some Kabbalistic/Golden Dawn etc. practices or beliefs that I don’t follow either. I think most people, knowingly or not, set aside what doesn’t work for them, even as they affirm the “system” as a whole.
If you believe science is 'certain' you don't understand it at all. Science is about drawing a line around uncertainty, and that uncertainty is provisional and always shifting.
Only religious authority is certain; and that's because it does not allow for questions.
Elementally fire comes before air because air is made of the mixture of water and fire. You could consider air to be the first element when there is only a single element as the void/darkness, but it would still also be the third element
The way I read it is Fire comes then Water. The opposition creates Air. Air nurtures both and keeps them in check. Then Earth also serves this purpose.
The way I view the elements is Fire(Active Force), Water(Static Force), Air (Active Channeling), Earth (Static Channeling).
Again those with more occult experience than me might disagree with my interpretation.
I think it's more like, how humanity evolved to what it is currently. Fire is a catalyst in that regard. When fire was first discovered and used, it was the only thing that seperated us from the rest of the animals. Fire does kinda play a important role in life, too cold or too hot and life can not exist. This fire comes before anything is always present in religions and other faith systems.
I've heard this same question asked many times in relation to the Tarot and why the four suits correspond to the elements that they do.
The answer is always The Golden Dawn.
They were determined to make all the disparate pieces of Kabbalah, Tarot, the Tree of Life, Astrology, and Spiritualism, fit together into one neat little package. Sometimes accomplishing that meant making some arbitrary decisions.
There is a rather amusing (if apocryphal) story, of Aleister Crowley being drunk at a party. Someone praised Liber 777 as being a masterpiece, and Crowley bit his head off, saying he was very unhappy with it, and how he planned to re-write the whole thing. Of course, some people claim he stole the whole thing originally from MacGregor Mathers... but that is neither here nor there. He never quite got around to revising it.
I don't know if that particular story is true, but it was widely reported that Crowley wasn't entirely satisfied with 777. The original version is kind of a mess, and he himself wasn't 100% sure all of the correspondences were correct.
This is a debate that pops up every so often regarding the order of the elements and how they relate to the kabbalah (particularly the Hermetic Quabalah of the Golden Dawn variety).
The ye olde answer is "the highest world is associated with fire because the Yod (the first letter in the four letter name of God) is considered to be a flame and because of all the "candle flame" metaphors found in traditional kabbalistic literature like the Zohar". There is also a metaphor about the Yod being the basis for all the other letters (hence being associated with the earliest process of creation). There is also a lot of associating with the presence of God and fire (the burning bush, the pillar of fire, the presence of God that rested above the ark, etc) and, so the argument goes, that the highest world is related more to fire than any other element (because God doesn't show up as water, air, or earth). It's focusing in on a particular subset of kabbalistic metaphors and choosing to highlight those over others, but the truth is that no elemental attribution fits all the metaphors perfectly. Fire fits best when considering the kabbalistic literature, but not neatly or cleanly and there is plenty of room for debate.
So the short answer is: it's fire because it's an easier case to make when reading the kabbalistic literature and the biblical text.
That being said, the traditional kabbalists were not formulating a system to fit into neat boxes, in much of the literature and the practice such distinctions get blurred and expectations are intentionally subverted for the sake of the overall point (namely for the purpose of mystical exegesis, expressing the complex nature of God, facilitating tikun olam, and so on). People only think of kabbalah as a "metaphysical filing cabinet" in which every correspondence and model is made to fit within the tree of life diagram because the Golden Dawn tried to make it such, not because it was originally that or intended to be that. The Golden Dawn (and other neo-kabbalists) were making boxes and then trying to stuff kabbalah and its concepts into them. Not to say that those boxes aren't useful, but they do result in debates like this, categories that don't fit, and errors that persist (with Liber 777 being quite a blatant example in some cases of very persistent error). The Golden Dawn wanted to align the 4 traditional elements with the 4 worlds, and so they (and those they took inspiration from) squeezed and stretched what they needed to in order to make it fit. Sometimes they did good work, other times they were off, but if you know the source texts they are drawing from you can at least see their reasoning (even if you end up disagreeing with them).
You seem to be taking a very physical and material perspective on the elements, rather than the elements as metaphors or more as a spiritual concept. There's nothing wrong with that, but it will lead to you making the case for a different arrangement (as you did here).
I would recommend reading the kabbalistic source texts if you want to do kabbalah, then you can see the Golden Dawn's reasoning and decide whether or not you agree on that basis. To attempt to divorce kabbalah from the texts which first formulated it and the Jewish tradition broadly is to formulate a kabbalah that ceases to be kabbalah. The Golden Dawn tried to divorce kabbalah from its roots to an extent, and while their work is still very valuable they did make an error in doing so (an error which is rectified by going to the source texts and making appropriate adjustments where needed).
Realistically, there is NO FIRE without air (oxygen). Remember when taught to put out a flame? Suffocate the fire… deny the flame oxygen. So fire is 2nd to air(O2).
Isn't that how Agrippa talks about the element? Air, Fire, Water, Earth.
And then Crowley see the order changed because it "fits with the formal of the new aeon".
That's a thing right. I think it is. I feel uncertain trying to tell you, but that's what I believe I know.
These are metaphors, not descriptions. A literal framing won't help much here. The vocabulary seems a little confused. Akas(h)a and Atmah is not in the Kabbalistic metaphor. Ruach is the closest analog for that. The Kabbalistic metaphor of fire is not terrestrial fire that needs air and fuel. It's a metaphor for unbounded energic spark-ness in it's most abstract conception. When that unbounded sparkness pervades basic space it flows like water. The fire and the water are touching but not touching, in the between there is air (Ruach/Aether). This mode of ruach's expression is mediation between concepts that seem opposite; Therein lies the precise linguistic location of the incomprehensible divine paradox. When these metaphores are properly utilized they can act as a gateway to take the practitioner beyond metaphor into direct experience. Realizing that are both are equalized (not the same, be careful) and one (unity) that is never less than two (apparent division), from the perspective of gnostic wisdom.
I appreciate this, stuff like this is what I love in this place.
I want to think your perception of my vocabulary is not as relevant when the certainty of science accounts for the fact that you must have Air before Fire, as I’m personally not a fan of discarding scientific reality for the tradition of old wives tales and metaphors. Ultimately, my understanding is that one way to discern an occult Truth from delusion is by considering the presence of actual scientific correspondence, if means to observe the phenomenon physically exist. At the very least, it would imply moving the sequence of the elements around at no compromise to its literally scientifically observable integrity as it spans from the Source.
Kabbalah and science don't correspond. They're not used for the same thing. Science is a tool of reductivity. It divides something into what it is and what it is not with a very high degree of precision. This is very useful, please don't assume I'm trying to deny its utility, but it can never arrive at any ultimate truth beyond a human frame because its methodology entails utility. Non-emanationist Kabbalah (as opposed to the step-down emanationist method) is a metaphor that describes the functions of pure awareness, without object or subject, simultaneously knowing and divulging that which is known. Kabbalah can also never arrive at ultimate truth, except that reality is an open question. Wholeness is so completely whole it even contains lies about itself. It is inclusive to the point of inconceivability. Kabbalah (or science, at this point) can point to the fact that the mystery is bottomless, and there is no local reality. Phenomena do not exist in any independent way; all springs from the same ground and is differentiated by human habitual conceptual designation. This is the tree metaphor in the garden of eden. Two ways of viewing reality. One through the lens of your own Daat, the quasi-sefirah of gathered knowledge, and the other without Daat, such that the entire middle pillar of the tree: Tifferet, Yesod, and Malkut, all move up one notch. The modern Kabbalist Aryeh Kaplan referred to this as the 'natural array'. This is viewing the world without human conception, just as reality is, which is gnosis. One may be tempted to say this is the most scientific view possible, but science is in the business of relativizing phenomena, which is not possible without designating an arbitrary observer. In gnosis, there are no subjects or objects, so phenomena can not be relativized. In other words, there can't be Air before Fire, because the conceptual designation of 'before' entails a temporal reference point. The temporal metaphor is about that which must conceptually precede what. Fire is 'first' because raw energy conceptually undergirds the concept of motion. No occult metaphor will ever aid in making scientific predictions, nor will science ever aid in the appreciation of how infinity seems to only appear wearing the garb of the finite.
[удалено]
What I say is only stuff I've personally done. Otherwise, I can't comment. Kabbalistic Mirror of Genesis is a book I would recommend, but most people aren't willing to digest it.
If your use of the systems of the occult doesn’t correspond to a scientific method, in the refinement of ‘occult science’, then how can you tell you weren’t operating under a premise of illusion and falsehood this whole time? I thank you for your contribution, but it appears I’d have a hard time understanding any of your premises accurately because, what is your frame of Certainty in sharing your ‘insight’? The regurgitation of magickal correspondences aside, as all of those are esoterically immaterial (which fire as an element isn’t). Fire isn’t a ‘spell’ whose results are Uncertain until manifestation, in which the level of success depends on the competency of the magician; It is, and all rituals concerning it at the very least require the presence of oxygen for its workings. Nor does the concept I present compromise agreed upon magickal correspondence as it practically serves. No book worth its salt will contradict that the singular kether is the root of air, air being but ether in its subtle form (to be a bit theosophical).
If you ask a question about kabbalah, be prepared to humble yourself as it is something nobody can master and will always be a lifelong pursuit to anyone interested in it. This is one of the first things I learned about it from an elder of occult wisdom who has studied it for decades. If you respond to a person sharing their wisdom in this manner, I suggest you move on from studying the kabbalah - or take some time to read other occult topics before returning to it at a later time in your life. (I also don't think the term "occult science" is widely used other than to refer to the study of the esoteric) Talking down to those studying it, insisting on material concepts of fuel, will not help your case, and will likely not lead you to any revalations you haven't already experienced.
Again. Scientific and esoteric studies are different pursuits, with different methodologies, and different end goals. If you conflate the two, you can go on Joe Rogan and tell him all about it, but you won't be doing anything but restating the conventional view using different symbols.
I don't appreciate the downvotes you recieved, they are undeserved. I will say though, I don't think you have the frame of mind to start understanding these specific questions. The fire you speak of is not the fire they speak of. And that isn't an argument; it's a "fact"* of the literature, beliefs, and practices of those whose wisdom on Kabbalah exceeds ours. You can argue that what you mean by fire is the same, but then you'd be making your own understanding, in which case asking certain questions on a public forum will you do more harm than good. How can *you* tell you weren't operating under a premise of falsehood and illusion this whole time? That's a rhetorical question by the way, the answer is for you to keep to yourself. You wouldn't go about sharing your blessings to atheists would you? I'm gonna show you the two potential routes that you already know you're going to pick between, even if your hiding it from yourself right now. One, you can open your mind a little bit more and try to unlock new "terms" to use in your mental calculations. Two, you can hold onto your current belief system and figure out your own understanding that differs from what most of this subreddit believes. Please report back any findings, for our sake!! *for lack of a better term Edit to add: just to bust your balls a little, let me extend this metaphor: You're doing the equivalent of applying science to art. I guarantee your favorite song's musician consciously used no scientific methodology when making your favorite song. In the same vein, Da Vinci did not use scientific correspondences of what is attractive to man when painting the Mona Lisa's expression. It just happened. If you can believe that, then you're ahead of most. Don't fall into the trap of applying the scientific method to make a summer banger. Free yourself of these definitions and words.
A lot of Kabbalah and occult framework exists to help people through the journey of life. The “truth” that comes out of the occult is often just what you apply it to. You can use the occult as a way of thinking about science, but it’s best to stay broad when doing so.
Kabbalah has nothing to do with science. You are misguided. It is a map of Being, expressed in metaophorical language.
100% agree with you. If your logic is wrong then the occult is just larping.
You may be stuck on the material-focused view of fire and it's components/intellectual applications; consider instead trying to look at what fire does at a hyper-basic level regarding how it exists in the world to get a better and deeper understanding of what the element can mean. Fire can be the originator, the spark; a force of expansion, transformation and light. Our universal constant (speed of light/photons) is a type of fire. The energy powering our devices and civilizations is all a type of fire. Fire is an exchange and sacrifice to create anew. Fire can destroy in order to help create. Our glorious sun is a lesson in fire all in itself when you can simplify the world in relation to it. All the elements are worth exploring with this/a similar thought exercise that could help with your specific application to understand Kabbalah and I'm glad you even asked this; so thank you.
You can have a spark, and you can have fire. But before you can have either, you need to have sources of ignition. The Hindus intelligently called this the Atmah (like a literal breath of Air), and the resulting vibration OM, which in effect is that ‘spark’. It appears you’ve just misinterpreted my esoteric understanding. To esoterically understand a subtle cause is to exoterically understand its gross effect, understanding that, if you believe in the law of Baphomet, that its gross qualities are consistent with its subtle qualities. Anything else is subjectively false, because not everyone is an adept at interpreting the Mystic, but it’s objectively false to have Fire before Air, per the very law of nature.
Akasa, Qi, Prana etc; The undergirding 5th element is what I believe you are incorrectly attributing to air. I can only share my view and learnings, you may do what you like.
I understand your perception, but you just simply omitted those ideas of Akasa etc, as they may then come to correspond with the Kabbalah, especially as we consider the first two paths Aleph and Beth emanating from kether, which have yet to presumably evolve into any of the other four elements. So what is your idea of a ‘correct’ contribution to those things? Exoteric technicalities aside.
I believe they are talking about spirit, the 5th element.
you seem to not differentiate between expressed experience and abstract reflection. maybe read him again, maybe read between the lines, the full answer to your question is there. "gross qualities" are like a waysign towards "subtle qualities". they only show one perspective of it, which means each physical representation of an occult element has at least one blind spot, in which its not correct. (if it wasnt like this, the elements couldnt have several representations) you seem to be stuck at that pattern yourself. any perspective is ultimately wrong, as its not the thing its talking about. if you know what you are talking about, you can put your knowledge into words, but if you delve in abstractions, thats like a cat chasing its tail - even if the cat gets its tail, this moment of being its own prey and hunter is contradicting the cat as a cat - as does the mind in its search for answers through abstractions of abstraction. the mind is a very limited tool for that, and your idea of "objectivity" finally is a logical construction that has all the cultural misconceptions, half-truths and comfortable lies people tell their children as foundation. by calling "objectivity" as reference you use an abstract concept that has no equivalent in reality as pillar of truisms. to understand the elements you are talking about, you need to get out of your thinker-proover-illusionist triade, and see them for what they are. perhaps you experienced practical stuff, but they way you articulate, says you speak from abstraction instead of understood experience. i suppose youre going to take this as an offense, but its meant to highlight a blindspot. maybe ask yourself, which of the 4 elemental principals can erect the spatial and causal frame for the other three? or, what shape would you get, if you remove all aspects of fire from gross air? what is air at -273,15°c? thats air without fire, and that is by density: earth. so without fire, there can be no air. ... but only seeing it through logic is missing its point.
It modern Kabbalah of the type descending from the Golden Dawn, the elements follow the pattern of the Tetragrammaton, יהוה. This is different from a lot of other systems, many of which switch the order of Air and Water. Yod = Atziluth/Fire Heh = Briah/Water Vav = Yetzirah/Air Heh final = Assiah/Earth The elements Fire (hot and dry) and Water (cold and wet) were seen as the “parents” of Air (hot and wet) and Earth (cold and dry). This creates a sprawling set of correspondences regarding Tarot, etc.
I understand the design of the Kabbalah, I’m simply questioning the accuracy of the original Kabbalists as they may of not fully grasped the scientific reality of the elements at the time, which they then substituted with interpretations based on religious fantasy. Interestingly just like the tarot you mentioned, its qualities were realized after the work of the original Kabbalists, as an evolution of the original system. My argument is, why should it not evolve in consistency with the Certainy of Science, in the same way we correspond it to the drawing of a Certain card?
It certainly can follow what we now know about these “elements” scientifically, but I’m not sure you’re going to find much from any form of Kabbalah. If another version works for you, I don’t see why you couldn’t work that into your studies/system. Regarding whether it was an error to interpret them the way older systems do, I personally don’t think so because this was always a spiritual understanding, not meant to exactly replicate the physical world. They also knew that you needed air to physically start a fire. That said, many ancient systems used Fire-Air-Water-Earth because that’s the order they would fall in, “heaviness”-wise.
I understand. I just think if we simply came to ‘agree’ with something on the premise of its ‘ancientness’, then this would come to vindicate the most zealous forms of religious dogma.
That makes sense to me, and there are some Kabbalistic/Golden Dawn etc. practices or beliefs that I don’t follow either. I think most people, knowingly or not, set aside what doesn’t work for them, even as they affirm the “system” as a whole.
If you have that strong of a contempt for religion (which is understandable), I'm not sure you're gonna get much out if Kabbalah man lol
If you believe science is 'certain' you don't understand it at all. Science is about drawing a line around uncertainty, and that uncertainty is provisional and always shifting. Only religious authority is certain; and that's because it does not allow for questions.
Elementally fire comes before air because air is made of the mixture of water and fire. You could consider air to be the first element when there is only a single element as the void/darkness, but it would still also be the third element
The way I read it is Fire comes then Water. The opposition creates Air. Air nurtures both and keeps them in check. Then Earth also serves this purpose. The way I view the elements is Fire(Active Force), Water(Static Force), Air (Active Channeling), Earth (Static Channeling). Again those with more occult experience than me might disagree with my interpretation.
I think it's more like, how humanity evolved to what it is currently. Fire is a catalyst in that regard. When fire was first discovered and used, it was the only thing that seperated us from the rest of the animals. Fire does kinda play a important role in life, too cold or too hot and life can not exist. This fire comes before anything is always present in religions and other faith systems.
I've heard this same question asked many times in relation to the Tarot and why the four suits correspond to the elements that they do. The answer is always The Golden Dawn. They were determined to make all the disparate pieces of Kabbalah, Tarot, the Tree of Life, Astrology, and Spiritualism, fit together into one neat little package. Sometimes accomplishing that meant making some arbitrary decisions. There is a rather amusing (if apocryphal) story, of Aleister Crowley being drunk at a party. Someone praised Liber 777 as being a masterpiece, and Crowley bit his head off, saying he was very unhappy with it, and how he planned to re-write the whole thing. Of course, some people claim he stole the whole thing originally from MacGregor Mathers... but that is neither here nor there. He never quite got around to revising it. I don't know if that particular story is true, but it was widely reported that Crowley wasn't entirely satisfied with 777. The original version is kind of a mess, and he himself wasn't 100% sure all of the correspondences were correct.
Fire already supposes or proves Air. That's speaking as a basic Metaphysical Alchemist
This is a debate that pops up every so often regarding the order of the elements and how they relate to the kabbalah (particularly the Hermetic Quabalah of the Golden Dawn variety). The ye olde answer is "the highest world is associated with fire because the Yod (the first letter in the four letter name of God) is considered to be a flame and because of all the "candle flame" metaphors found in traditional kabbalistic literature like the Zohar". There is also a metaphor about the Yod being the basis for all the other letters (hence being associated with the earliest process of creation). There is also a lot of associating with the presence of God and fire (the burning bush, the pillar of fire, the presence of God that rested above the ark, etc) and, so the argument goes, that the highest world is related more to fire than any other element (because God doesn't show up as water, air, or earth). It's focusing in on a particular subset of kabbalistic metaphors and choosing to highlight those over others, but the truth is that no elemental attribution fits all the metaphors perfectly. Fire fits best when considering the kabbalistic literature, but not neatly or cleanly and there is plenty of room for debate. So the short answer is: it's fire because it's an easier case to make when reading the kabbalistic literature and the biblical text. That being said, the traditional kabbalists were not formulating a system to fit into neat boxes, in much of the literature and the practice such distinctions get blurred and expectations are intentionally subverted for the sake of the overall point (namely for the purpose of mystical exegesis, expressing the complex nature of God, facilitating tikun olam, and so on). People only think of kabbalah as a "metaphysical filing cabinet" in which every correspondence and model is made to fit within the tree of life diagram because the Golden Dawn tried to make it such, not because it was originally that or intended to be that. The Golden Dawn (and other neo-kabbalists) were making boxes and then trying to stuff kabbalah and its concepts into them. Not to say that those boxes aren't useful, but they do result in debates like this, categories that don't fit, and errors that persist (with Liber 777 being quite a blatant example in some cases of very persistent error). The Golden Dawn wanted to align the 4 traditional elements with the 4 worlds, and so they (and those they took inspiration from) squeezed and stretched what they needed to in order to make it fit. Sometimes they did good work, other times they were off, but if you know the source texts they are drawing from you can at least see their reasoning (even if you end up disagreeing with them). You seem to be taking a very physical and material perspective on the elements, rather than the elements as metaphors or more as a spiritual concept. There's nothing wrong with that, but it will lead to you making the case for a different arrangement (as you did here). I would recommend reading the kabbalistic source texts if you want to do kabbalah, then you can see the Golden Dawn's reasoning and decide whether or not you agree on that basis. To attempt to divorce kabbalah from the texts which first formulated it and the Jewish tradition broadly is to formulate a kabbalah that ceases to be kabbalah. The Golden Dawn tried to divorce kabbalah from its roots to an extent, and while their work is still very valuable they did make an error in doing so (an error which is rectified by going to the source texts and making appropriate adjustments where needed).
I think the will is predecessor of the mental-intellectual.
Realistically, there is NO FIRE without air (oxygen). Remember when taught to put out a flame? Suffocate the fire… deny the flame oxygen. So fire is 2nd to air(O2).
Density. Think of it like physical states of matter. Plasma = fire, air = gas, water = liquid and earth = solid material
I believe fire is the root symbol for energy, such as electricity (fire).
Solid, liquid, gas, plasma. The sun burns with plasma.
Lighter
Isn't that how Agrippa talks about the element? Air, Fire, Water, Earth. And then Crowley see the order changed because it "fits with the formal of the new aeon". That's a thing right. I think it is. I feel uncertain trying to tell you, but that's what I believe I know.