OX

the two letters of OX in English suggest the Cross and the Circle.

Sounds kinda Kenneth Grant-ish.

And "A.C.ish" I suggest you check out his coommentary to N.O.X.

And "A.C.ish" I suggest you check out his coommentary to N.O.X.

There's also Motta's Qabalistic switching of "s" to "z" (which is curiously reminiscent of Crowley's interpretation of the word AIWASS/AIWAZ) whereby a word such as REASON adds to 333.

Edited at 2008-08-07 12:56 pm (UTC)

From the way I quoted that I can see why yoo might be confused. If the statement is א equals אלף equals ox equals O + X equals cross + circle equals rose cross, therefore Alpeh equals rose cross, that's mighty KGish. Crowley's Gematritoh can be dubious sometimes (like adding silent Fs to things to make them 93) but there alot alot of cases of it.

If the statement is א equals אלף equals ox equals O + X equals cross + circle equals rose cross, therefore Alpeh equals rose cross, that's mighty KGish.

That's not the statement however. Something called a period sets the sentences apart. The third sentence considers the shape of the Eng. letters themselves (hence the parallel to N.O.X. noted by Omphallos111). Additionally, the rose cross association that you mention isn't addressed by Motta. If anything, you're channeling Kenny G. here.

Additionally, the rose cross association that you mention isn't addressed by Motta.

This is true, the cross and the circle being associated with the rose cross is an association Crowley wrote about, not Motta. I was taking it a step further and probably should have stuck with what was actually in the text.

That's not the statement however. Something called a period sets the sentences apart. The third sentence considers the shape of the Eng. letters themselves

That sounds reasonable. But if he goes on to use it to prove that a Hebrew letter is meant to represent two geometric figures that are similar to letters that compose an interpretation in English of the word that Hebrew letter represents, who does that sound like?

If anything, you're channeling Kenny G. here.

Naturally.

Best to keep ALP as Ox, and ShVR for Bull (also the Hebrew word for Taurus).

While I appreciate some of the distinctions you note, the cow and ox are essentially the same animal in much the same way as a donkey and onager are. As far as "wildness" goes, Crowley has no issue associating Babalon and Baphomet to Aleph in "The Book of Thoth". Additionally, Crowley also makes the identification in "An Essay Upon Number": "ALP, Aleph an ox, a thousand. The redeeming Bull."

My apologies, then.

Whatever for?

I was speaking of traditions of these words that existed several hundred years before Crowley's birth.

That's fine. However, I think that what Crowley wrote is important - particularly in respect to a text he received.

It is astonishing, indeed, that anyone managed to complete the Great Work before him, without any of his voluminous guidance.

This is really off topic. Whatever your issues with Crowley, please work these out somewhere else.