User:Vuara/Hyperlanguage of the Hebrew Alphabet

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search

An Angelic Alphabet

The Hebrew ‘aleph-beit’ is a ‘cognitive entheogen’, and is divine in nature. It accurately represents ways of knowing which conserve their not-entirely-human origins, and is a living artifact from a vast Epic of adventures with celestial presence on Earth. If we look at this from the perspective of spirituality, this language is a gift to the people of Earth from our spiritual progenitors. It is also a lot like a science-fiction toy from the future — it has trans-temporal connectivities and thus comprises something of a ‘prophecy device’. Hebrew is a living doorway to the ‘outside’ of what we understand as Time. I state this not as theory or philosophy but as easily demonstrated fact.

Theopoetic in function and purpose, the whole of creation is experienced by initiates as encoded in a magical way in the archetypal identities, shapes, histories, and relations of the letters. These relations are commonly non-linear, and so potentially diverse as to defy any single system of exploration. Each entity in a letter, word or phrase is reflectively redefined by systems of context, position and a magically-founded numerism which is most likely the source of modern ‘numerology’.

The 613 thousand letters of the Torah are said to comprise a single name of God, and a remembrance of the number of the souls who departed Egypt during Exodus. But hidden within the relational symmetries of the letters are profound doorways to ecstatic communion with their source. For thousands of years the ‘hidden’ aspects of Hebrew have escaped secular understanding almost entirely — a common goal of any sacred tongue. Yet these matters and ways are not meant to remain forever hidden, and in truth we live in a new Aeon where what was long hidden is now to be revealed and magnified in our lives and experience — not merely in books.

Whether or not Hebrew is ‘the chosen language’ is a question for those children who prefer division to unity, so too are questions relating to authorization to know, use or learn it. Hebrew is an amazing archeocognitive enlightenment-game. It is meant to be ‘played’ by children, not experts — and its purpose is liberation, not admonition and wrathful judgment as we are too often convinced by those who know too little of these matters to have any reasonable credentials for ‘teaching us’ of them.

The Numbers in the Letters in the Names...

In ancient cultures numeric entities were ‘something else’ before they were abstract. To know the ‘number 1’ was akin to having a special teaching angel for a best friend — it was a relationship with a being, not a token. Each of the cardinals (first 9 or ten numbers) was contemplated in similar fashion. In our time we are taught to denigrate such knowledge as spurious or superstition. The bald fact of reality is that in comparison it is our stance which is absurd, not theirs. The whole domain of mathematics and all of the sciences have their source in the precursors of the religions and informal metaphysics they labor so feverishly to denigrate, vilify or deny.

Back around the time of Pythagoras, and probably for a long long time before him, the fundamental numeric entities were experientially known to be living transports to impossible understanding. Their use in counting as abstract ‘values’ was seen as a denigrated and pragmatic reduction of their real natures and functions — akin to making idols to represent gods. Each of the first nine (ten to initiates) numbers is of peculiar and of profound formative significance, and each uniquely reflects the other members of the primordial set. These entities are not quantities, but are akin to transports in the body of the unityBeing — ‘angels’ (or angles) who exist as accessible teachers and ‘measurers’. To activate this transport, one cultivates a playfully non-human model of numerism in general, not entirely unalike with something we might expect from ‘an insane person’ in modern times.

‘Counting’ and ‘math’ are merely falsified pragmatic reductions of this ancient understanding, useful only for matters of enumerating and ‘building things’. These ‘abstract’ faces of numeric entities are terrifying in their ability to rob us of unity and comprehension, for they ‘shave away’ all that is true and real in preference to ‘images of empty structure’. As a denigrated toy, these forms of knowing are useful, but if we credential them as gods the result is a direct and crippling attack upon our anciently conserved organismal and human intelligence. When this attack ceases, our intelligence naturally expands to inhabit the re - membered spaciousness of the universe itself, and many universes beyond those we’ve named.

The hebrew arts of sacred writing comprise the elements of a formative hyperlanguage, extremely different from our own, and the letters of their aleph-beit share these qualities — existing as ‘many dimensional’ spiritual archetypes arranged in scalarly self-referential lexicon. Hebrew is a living doorway which conserves these relations, and it offers us precious access into not only what is possible, but the opportunities which lie far beyond what was accomplished thousands of years ago. It is an inexhaustible vehicle of literal enlightenment, not merely the language of a given people on Earth.

It is our birthright to have access to learning-modes and knowledge far in excess of the sum of what human science and religion can offer. We will never claim this right in isolation, for it is in every case the sacred fruit of human unity in mutual uplift, rescue, learning and celebration.

Notarikon,Temura and Gematria:

To understand a single letter, is to become ‘more alike with’ all that it relates to and is reflected with(in). Each is a living koan, a riddle-friend with whom one will always live and travel. Each letter also has a variety of numeric associates, which are ‘computed’ according to the rules of a variety of formal and informal systems. Each letter has at least 4 ‘intrinsic values’ in Gematria. Rather than being merely numbers, these values correspond to poetic and spiritual archetypes which represent primordial principles in multiple dimensions of metafication. Hebrew words have this same quality, which is a ‘sum’ of these angelic-lingual ‘archetypes’.. Each word may be numerically indexed to other term-archetypes in its ‘intimate family’ via a discipline known as gematria. These ‘games’ form a whole other dimension of semantic literacy, and provide a mode of recombinantly active metaphoric connectivity unknown in English.

Two words with the same gematric indices are clearly and usually poetically related. The potentials for relational gematria are probably infinite, but a few standard forms of the discipline have come down to us from their sources in history. One must suspect that the most profoundly adept incarnations of these games remain largely the guarded secret of the highest initiates, and may well be impossible to transmit in ‘system’ being founded instead in achieving and sustaining direct contact with God as co-interpreter

In gematria, each letter has various values, but one of these, the spelling value, is of particular import. Each letter in Hebrew is also a ‘word’ and thus has ‘a spelling’, usually comprised of 2 or 3 letters, beginning with the letter being spelled. Other values have to do with an arithmetic matrix and positional denominations [see 'aleph']. Thus a letter’s constituents can be ‘summed’ to produce an expansion of its elemental nature.

These values correlate with mystical and poetic principles related to the precedence-ladder of powers and events traversed in Creation, and particularly in Genesis. Essentially this is a door to an ever-more profound relationship with the sources of the Hebrew language, which turns out in every case to lead directly to contact with the living source of language itself.


Notarikon is the ‘noticing’ of the compressed terms which emerge when one takes the first letter each word in a specific block of text in order, discarding the rest. Many modes exist, such as last letter of a given statement, etc. Acrostics are a form of Notarikon, where the first letter of each line is taken, and these are added together to produce an encoded phrase. Notarikons can be gematrially correlated, and Temura may be applied as well, leading to further gematria.

Temura is a substitution-game, and the temura of a word can be gematrially reduced and thus correlated with indexes in memory or tome. The common forms of temura are listed below:

Note: Read English Left to Right : Read Hebrew Right to Left

Atbash: First letter is traded for the last, 2nd for 2nd to last, &c.

i.e: YHVH (or YHWH) = MTzPTz

Albam: Add 11 letter positions to the letter in question. A = L [1 (the letter)+11 = 12]

i.e: YHVH = ShAiPAi

Avgad: Add 1 letter-position. A = B


In early Hebrew, some letters were understood to act as guides or ‘matris lecionis’ (mothers of reading) because these letters held sway over the meaning-shape and sound-shape of the word. These protovowels formed the decoding premise of nearly every ‘word-form’ and thus acted as lexical ‘keys’ to the language itself. Aleph, Hey and Yud and Vahv most commonly used in this way.

Hebrew is suspected by most scholars to be a Canaanite dialect which began to establish itself as distinct sometime around 1000 B. C. E. The most likely symbolic sources are Phoenician— Proto-Hebraic is functionally indistinguishable from this lineage-precursor.

The square lettering form in modern use is thought to have arisen after the jewish captivity in Babylon. In Greek, the weakened guttural sounds of specific Phoenician letters, (nearly identical to old hebrew) were translated into the primordial vowels as follows:

Aleph - Alpha

Hey - Epsilon

Chait - Eta

Yod - Iota

Aiyin - Omicron

Vahv - Upsilon

In order to preserve traditional pronunciation Masoretic (a term possibly equivalent to ‘traditionalist’) scribes established and perfected a system which was distinct from the texts but could be overlaid upon them without changing the original document’s symbolic identity. Thus a modern ‘marked’ text should in theory be identical to an unmarked precursor, and markings may be systematically applied to any unmarked text without disturbing the symmetries and symbols of the text itself. The simple-seeming question: why have a complex system of markings when you can just put vowel-characters in is defeated by the timeline: these languages are from the genesis-period of vowels, and the Greeks gave and integrated the answer we ourselves still employ. The other night whilst viewing russian text in a film I recognized that their I character corresponds to our O...


Introducing Biblical Hebrew, Allen P. Ross, pp. 15 - 21.



"The language which must be learned to understand it" is a formative hyperlanguage constructed from semantically-accurate self-signifying signs -- the inner, structural/energetic meanings of the Hebrew alphabet.

The basic postulate: there is a hidden text written in this hyperlanguage concealed in Bereshit/Genesis and other Books of the Hebrew Bible, which can be de-coded letter by letter and word by word to yield a completely new text. Not numerology or gematria, not "bible codes," not an interpretive or hermeneutical approach, not even a translation: an unseen, coherent, self-verifying, transcendent, text. Testing this postulate, learning the language and decoding and reading the text is the revelation.



The Formative Hyperlanguage of the Hebrew Alphabet of Creation

 Beta version  

1. What is a hyperlanguage? 2. What is a formative hyperlanguage? 3. How can an alphabet have/be a language? 4. What is an alphabet of creation? The Hebrew alphabet, considered as recursive, self-signifying formative functions or patterns, represents the smallest set of structural-semantic primes or fundamental powers necessary to generate a multiverse.

 We usually think of alphabets as the building blocks of language, not as languages in themselves. We know many languages that are made from essentially the same alphabet, and after all, what would "a" or "b" mean? Which is exactly the point to consider. 

What if "a" or "b" had a meaning in addition to phonetic value? Then each letter of a word would contain its own significance, as well as contributing meaning to the whole. What if "a" or "b" had spellings themselves, with recursive hyperlinks to the meanings of those letters, and the letters of those letters? And what if were necessary to read a word from both directions, or in different permutations of letters?

The best description for such a language might be "hyperlanguage" since all its components are hyperlinked to other components in nested recursions. Formal definition of the word "hyperlanguage" may not exist. Google's sole general description may suggest why: Hyperlanguages transcend human languages in the same manner which human languages transcend the protolanguages of chimpanzees.

       Mark Alan Walker: Prolegomena to Any Future Philosophy  

What is a formative hyperlanguage?

The search for a perfect, or universal, "adamic" language, or Characteristica Universalis , has been a part of human history since the Tower of Babel and Cratylus.

George Spencer-Brown: Laws of Form The language of True Names, Signature Rerum.

From: Memosys: Dr. Andreas Goppold: Infrastructures of Representation: A Quest for Multimedial Symbolization Systems: 6. Characteristica Universalis and the Origin of the Symbolator. 6.1.4. Precursors and successors of the CU Leibniz was by no means the first nor the only one to have worked on a universal language (UL) or character system (CS). Indeed, it could be said that the project of a UL was the craze of the day in 17th century proto-scientist circles (K88, 96). This quest can (somewhat arbitrarily, ANM:ADAM[107]) be originated with Jacob B鰄me (1575-1624) who had called for the re-discovery of the Adamic Language (or AL), the original language humans were supposed to have spoken before the events that were expressed in the biblical myth of the building of the Tower of Babel. Francis Bacon (1561-1626) proposed a set of universal characters in "The Advancement of Learning" and "De Augmentis Scientiarum" in 1623. The development was carried on. The list includes: Marin Mersenne 1636, John Wilkins 1641, Francis Lodwick 1647, Thomas Urquaart 1653, Cave Beck 1657, George Dalgarno 1661, Johann Joachim Becher 1661, Isaak Newton 1661, Athanasius Kircher 1663, Johann Amos Comenius 1668, Johann Sturm 1676, De Vienne Plancy 1681. (K91, p. 242; K88, 95-97). Leibniz was well aware of the approaches at UL and AL of his forerunners. Considerable influence in his thoughts had the combinatorical scheme of the Ars Magna of Raimundus Lullus (1233-1315) which he cites in "De Arte Combinatoria" of 1660. Lullus' system was not a language system but it played considerable importance in Leibniz' logical work on the CU.

 6.2.6. Cabbala as Ars Characteristica 

The interpretation of the cabbala as given by Suar鑣 follows a thought pattern that we will find again in the chapter on "Symbolic Machines" or "Formal Character Systems". (See: ->:SYM-MACH, ->:ARS-CHAR ) On page 38 to 40, Suar鑣 describes the cabbala of the SY in terms recognizable as an approximation to the Ars Characteristica aspect of Leibniz' Characteristica Universalis.

 The language of the Sepher Yetsira... treats objects - water, fire, human bodies, planets, the zodiac - only in terms of their situation and of their r鬺e within an infinitely multiple, hierarchical, systematisation of the one energising life force. The equations indicating these objects consequently designate, on all planes, all the structures which exist, or could exist, in the innumerable, known or unknown, conjugations of this hierarchical system, form the most material to the most rarefied, from the least to the highest state of consciousness. 
   SUARES-SEPHER, p. 39  
 The terms used by Suar鑣 are somewhat on the poetic side, but we can recognize the universal, combinatoric structure of a formal CS as Leibniz also had intended. Whether this interpretation can be worked through, or operated, cannot be determined here since that would require a thorough understanding of hebrew. 

The cabbala is in this view an Ars Characteristica that has only been confused and confounded with (mostly theological) meanings by mystics first and later by rational theologists like Gerson Scholem.

 Mr. Scholem provoked the exaggerations to which this way of thinking gave rise, classifying everything under the false category of "mysticism."           SUARES-SEPHER, p. 20  


Universal languages have generally been approached from the Ars Characteristica side, as a language of essences present in all things. The formative aspect, which is why the "True Names" are true, is less considered.

    In the Sefer Yetzira system, grammar rules the world without its being used in any semantic manner ... This is a system in which the semantic level of language has been completely marginalized, viewed as a secondary, relatively insignificant use of a universal scientific set of laws. 

The system is not semantic; can it be regarded as a semiotic one? ... is the alphabet of creation a rejection of a system of signifiers expressing a semantic message and the adoption of an alternative system of signs, signifying processes in the divine worlds and the actions of the divine powers in the created universe? ...

    When a question is raised whether a scientific term is a sign or not, there will be no doubt that the word representing the term is one. Whatever a quasar or quark really is, the words "quasar" and "quark" are undoubtedly signs, created artificially to designate esotermic phenomena. But what happens if someone postulates that the enormous energy emitted from a quasar erupts from the word "quasar" itself? What if a scientific system arrives at the conclusion that the mountain emerges from the word "volcano"? In such a case, it will be possible to surmise that the word is the signified, while the material representation is the sign. This is actually the system presented by the Sepher Yetsira: The letter of the alphabet is the source of the planet, and not a sign by which it is designated. 

The Language of Creation and Its Grammar Joseph Dan, Jewish Mysticism, Vol I, Aronson, 1998, p.151

Joseph Dan is rare in taking the Sepher Yetsira on its own terms, but without an understanding of the rich semantic system of the Yetsira, he is forced to look for an "alternative system of signs" in the divine world, which are non-semantic in nature. This raises the problem of a boundary between meaning and non-meaning.

    The Sefer Yetzira appears to base its statements and conclusions on observation and analysis, rather than on homiletical interpretation of biblical verses and the traditions of ancients sages. Its statements are ones that can be analysed, criticized, and interpreted on their own merits, rather than in comparison to a proof-text or the truth revealed to previous generations of sages. 

The basic concepts of the Sefer Yetzira are so radically different than those of ancient Judaism that the attraction they exerted on Jewish Medieval scientists is obvious, once we successfully detach ourselves from the images introduced by eight centuries of "mythical," "mystical, and "magical" exegesis on the book.

Three Phases of the History of the Sefer Yetzira Joseph Dan, Jewish Mysticism, Vol I, Aronson, 1998, p.169 (emphasis added)

People write Hebrew comments on the book, and other foolish people come later and comment on the commentary. Between them, the truth is lost ... Rabbi Yaakov ben Nissim, 10th century CE.

The Sepher Yetsira is a scientific, cosmological work, not a mystical, homilectic (a la Zohar) commentary. Eight centuries of mythological, anthropomorphizing, theosophizing images must be discarded to approach the Sepher Yetsira on its own completely rational and scientific terms.

 6.2.7. Structural Properties of the Cabbala 

A further discussion of the cabbala requires a thorough understanding of Hebrew, which we cannot supply here. What we can do, is look at the formal aspects of the cabbalistic system. An important observation is the tree structure of the autiot characters. Since the name of each character can be expanded in a manner of context free grammars, each character or aut gives rise to an endlessly repeating tree structure.


and so on.

Now this in itself may be nice but there is nothing new to it. We can do the same with the Greek Alpha-Beta system and form a tree, or in whatever language where the letters have full names. But we have a start that we will come back to. In the chapter on fractal character systems we will show a way to make good use of a nested character structure. Its system is somewhat different but it is following the same line of thought.


A very interesting possibility should ensue when we can find a systematic means of changing the tree hidden under a character as influenced by its neighbor characters. This has not been envisioned by the cabbalists who had nothing but their unaided brains to do their symbol processing for them. (ANM:LIFE[108]) Such exploits are better done with the symbolator.

What's new is the meaning: understanding each recursive letter as an abstract, generalized, biologically-structured formative pattern/process (or structural/energetic or semantic/semiotic) "fundamental power of all being." [ * ].

It's not the tree under the letter that changes (their recursive sturctures are unaffected). Instead, they all contribute their nested semantic structures to the whole, whose integration is the work of the formator, who stands in the center and makes the links on the appropriate levels of structuration and signification. Ten Sephirot Belimah. Ten and not nine. Ten and not eleven. Understand with Hhokmah. Meditate with Binah. Examine them. Delve into them and experiment with them. And the one who is there (standing) speaks to his creator and puts the maker of form in his rightful place (or, his foundation). Suares, SY, 1:4 The formative/symbolic meanings and recursive structures of the Hypertext Hebrew Alphabet can be explored in depth. As an introduction to qualities of our theoretical hyperlanguage, we can examine the structures of the first six letters of the alphabet.

Recursive Expansions of the First Six Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet







The first six letters of the Hebrew alphabet contain three different kinds of structures, or semantic automata: two infinite repeating series, one complex (Aleph, Bayt, Ghimel, Dalet), one simple (Waw) and one non-recursive, terminating character, Hay. It is important to remember that we are dealing with biologically structured energies in different states of organization. The first four letters, while very different in meaning and action, share a common biological process in their roots: the Dalet-Lamed-Mem rhythm of controlled response (Lamed) in a resistant (Dalet) biological pattern (Mem).

We have learned from recent research that complex structures may be produced by simple rules. Whether or not a meaningful principle of computational equivilance exists, it is interesting to contemplate the results from complex rules.

With this brief introduction to the deep structure of individual letters, we can now put a few of them together and examine the consequences. The first three letters of Genesis/Bereshit, bring thirteen into creation, including itself. When examined in their deep structure and interrelatedness, we immediately recognize the fundamental theme of the qabala: creation is the result of the structuration of the one dual energy.


The central Raysh endogenously produces in existence the cosmic Sheen, breath of God. The first, exterior, Yod of outer existence supports the Bayt process, providing material containers for cosmic energy. The second, interior, Yod provided by the inner Yod of Raysh-Yod-Sheen-Yod-Noun supports the Aleph process, bringing the Intemporal into existence. This double structuration of energy, immediately evident in the expansion of the first three letters of Bereshit/Genesis, can be found in every word and verse of the first four chapters of the Bible.