5 – New views on the cards

New views on the cards

1 / 121 / 12421 / 1248421 as a natural pattern

What is maybe one of the strangest things of all here, is how all of these formula can be derived through the initial formula of 1+2+1. In looking around for more information for this pattern, I noticed that it would pop up in strange places, particularly programming exercises. This 1-2-4-8-4-2-1 is a fundamentally simple mathematical pattern, that reapers all of the time without people realizing it.

There is a hypothesis that I’m still working on, but consider the logic. If you take the idea of evolution and apply it to social constructs, you get what Dawkin’s has called memes. What if you then took this same idea that these social structures can evolve, and then applied it to systems of divination? If you could make a “evolutionary tree” of divination systems, could you then begin to track the fitness of individual systems through their mathematical complexity and coherence? Could you test these systems against mathematics to see how robust they are, and then compare its structure against other established systems?

With this finding of the pattern of 1248421 in the Tarot, might be able to begin to create an “Evolutionary Tree of Divination”, and begin to connect all of these things together by seeing how their mathematical models connect.

Once you’ve done that though, and start ranking systems of divination on fitness, you come into somewhat strange mental territory. Fitness implies that one system works better than another, if you can then prove that one system of divination works better than another, you are implicitly accepting that divination has to work on some sort of fundamental level.

This pattern is so simple, repeatable, and universal, here it is a dozen different places it’s popped up in coding. Of course, none of these people have any any idea the significance of what they have written out.















Once you understand this pattern, and if you believe in evolution, you then have to accept this system as a mathematical truth that can be rebuilt from simple logic. In fact, you are then almost compelled to see that the Tarot evolved like this. Because it reflects this universal pattern so well, it must be extremely fit. Not only could the pattern of Tarot cards re-evolve from from nothing, it’s almost guaranteed that its happened many times throughout the universe. If you believe in evolution and life on other planets, then it must also be true that there are cards, just like the Tarot, on other planets as well.

My work on understanding this piece of evidence is still in development, but it at least shows that this is an extremely universal mathematical pattern, which gives further proof that this ordering is the correct way.


Evolution of Systems

After seeing how all of these things connect together, I noticed an interesting and lost continuity in some of these systems. If we take geomancy as the precursor to the Tarot, we can draw a connection from Geomancy all of the way through to the MBTI.

Geomancy -> Tarot -> Jung -> MBTI

Geomancy turned into the Tarot, which informed Carl Jung’s theory of personality, which shaped the development of the MBTI.

I’m actually not the first person to notice a parallel between Geomancy and the MBTI. But as far as I can tell, no one has been able to highlight where this lost gap in knowledge was from.  For example: http://imgur.com/J8hlyDn


Viewing the I-Ching and Hebrew alphabet as exact opposites

With this new viewpoint, you can perfectly map the I-Ching inside of the Tarot Major Arcana. The way to this, isn’t by mapping a 1 to 1 ratio of a single Hexagram to a single card, the relationship is actually, each piece of a hexagram represents an energy pathways between each of the Trumps. With this system, you don’t need to drop any of the data, or make any strange connections. They are mirror images of each other. Where the Tarot cards represent individual points of energy, the Yin and Yang are acting as vector pathways. It’s similar to a particle in physics, in that we can either know its position, or its movement, but not both. It’s either a point, or it’s a vector.

This view of how the Hebrew alphabet and I-Ching are mirrors is fundamentally revolutionary, since before people were just guessing at what connected to what. Now we can now show mathematically that you can recreate the data set of one, from another. In fact, if you just draw out those 22 points, and then connect the dots vertically, it will create this binary sequence. From there, if you draw out the hexagrams in as simple a form as possible, and connect them up with the yin/yang at top and at the bottom, it will give you just enough room to create those 22 points between the lines. These things are exact opposites.

This creates a brand new viewpoint from which to study these things. Consider that from one view, you can then study how the hexagrams could fit with the Tree of life and Hebrew letters; This would be viewpoint number 1. Another view point would be to see how the Hebrew letters fit with the hexagram patterns from the I-Ching; this is viewpoint number 2.

Once you see that both of these systems are just abstractions off of one deeper mathematical system, you can view them as these exact opposites. Because of this, now creates a new 3rd viewpoint. You can now view the Hebrew alphabet and I-Ching as just two sets of information; with which to take an equal view of studying how the two work together in harmony; This is new higher holistic third view point.

In fact, if we keep going with this idea, we can look at this Tarot structure, Tree of Life structure, Winding Staircase structure, Geomancy Structure, etc, as all just abstractions off of a Monad. For example, as I have shown with the programming exercises, this sequence naturally starts off with the number 1. The number 1 is what 121 is abstracted from. http://cboard.cprogramming.com/c-programming/7564-increment-decrement-loop.html
But then it also shows up in an interesting ways, such as in Pascal’s triangle, as an exponent of 11 (3rd line): http://www.mathsisfun.com/pascals-triangle.html


What is the fundamental difference then between these views of the Tree of Life?

Besides how the symbols are laid out, what is the fundamental difference this new view of the Tree of Life, against the old view? The old view is a constructed model which has information mapped onto it, whereas the new version is a mathematical model which information mapped to it.

While these two things sound almost identical, at their core they are radically different. The current tree is a 2-dimensional map that has been constructed and changed over centuries.  From this 2 dimensional construct, many attributes and pieces of information have been applied to it. I’m going to talk more about this in the next post.

The new version of the tree, starts with a mathematical foundation, and then lets the structure rise from that. Only after this structure has been created, is then information, symbols, logic and everything else applied to it. The older versions were created from that very sort of just making it fit the best it could, that it hasn’t been reviewed or tested for a completely different way to understand it at its very core.

All of the lore and texts, any sort of ideas and connections, these could all be simply viewed as information. Both versions of the tree will have this information, it’s the structure that has changed. Both of these versions of the tree have the same essential symbols, but these symbols are then projected onto a 2D map in the old version, rather than arising from it with the new.


Map is not the territory. The Magick is in the conciousness change, not the model.

If the current model of the Tree of LIfe is wrong, then how does any magick work at all?  There are so many magickal systems out there, some that obviously work well, whereas there are others that don’t seem as effective. What is the difference then? I would say that the more efficient the model of magick, the more accurate and effective the result.

There are so many different religions and mystical systems in this world, in a certain sense, they can’t all be literally “right”, but on another plane of viewing the situation, we all exist here together on earth, and person can learn any one of these systems. There has to be some deeper universal reasoning that shows where they are all created from.  When you look at all of these mystical systems together in a very bare form, they seem to all share one common key purpose. They are tools and systems to create change in consciousness. All language, logical systems, rhetoric, and forms of magick, are systems of consciousness manipulation. I’m not implying this in a negative sense, but in very bare terms of, this is the fundamental function of how these changes operate. Mathematics, and all other number systems (the quadrivium) are about how consciousness fits within physical parameters.

When looking at the Tree of Life as it’s known now, we can view it as a 2D map of the universe with a very complete set of consciousness related symbols, which can be manipulated. The magick itself, is the consciousness change due to the interaction with those symbols, it’s not necessarily from the 2D map itself. As they say, “The map is not the territory”. We can then view any language or symbol set as one of these maps, the question then becomes, how accurate is this map in relation to all of these other maps? This then goes back to my point of understanding the new Tree as a mathematical model, rather than the old one which is a construct.

I don’t see all of the information that’s been generated with the old model as 100% wrong, but I can’t see it as totally correct either. I would say it’s kind of like physics. Once Einstein proved general relativity, it didn’t “break” everything before it, rather forced the understanding of physics to a higher level. The current tree of life has all of the required symbols, so in one sense it’s not a bad map. This doesn’t mean that can’t be rebuilt to be much better though. For example, you can still make calculations with Newtonian physics, but won’t be as accurate as it could be, nor allow you to do the most advanced and precise calculations that we are doing in this time period; but it still works to some degree.


© 2015 Steven Glick  All Rights Reserved

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *