|
Post by maybank on Nov 5, 2013 14:16:54 GMT
I am re-reading some of the Typhonian Trilogies, and have been musing on Grant’s use of gematria therein. Why is there the insistence on using Hebrew – is this because Hebrew is seen as an Ur-alphabet and closer to the Divine? I undestand that it was believed in the past that Hebrew was the language spoken by G-d and the angels – but one might well use Enochian instead if the latter is seen as desirable? Perhaps Hebrew is used just because gematria was invented by Jewish Kabbalists, it may be as simple as that.
I enjoy Grant’s gematria up to a point, and consider that it may be one method of revealing the underlying unity of the Universe - but, I am a bit dubious that spelling words in Hebrew which weren't orioginally Hebrew words (e.g magical names like Aossic) allows for multiple numeric totals, thus increasing the chances of arriving at a ‘meaningful’ sum. For example, wasn’t Dee’s spelling of ‘Coronzon’ altered by Grant for this very reason – so that with a different spelling using the Hebrew alphabet, the sum of 333 would be achieved? (IIRC it would mean substituting ‘Koph’ for the initial letter with another, possibly ‘He’).
As a poetic device in the Trilogies I think it is fine; but as proper, kosher (!) Kabbalah I vacillate between acceptance and doubt.
What do others think?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on Nov 5, 2013 18:25:50 GMT
Where does Grant insist on using Hebrew? He doesn't, so far as I am aware. In fact, his use of Greek gematria, as well as Cabala Simplex, rather undermines your idea that he insists on the use of Hebrew. Admittedly he uses Hebrew predominantly, but that's his choice, not a matter of "insistence".
With Grant, it is the number that is all-important, because he is using gematrical relationships to underpin and insight that he has already had, instead of reaching an insight by virtue of a gematrical relationship. This leads him at times to stretch the gematria, but Grant is interested in painting a picture, not in presenting a scientific, "objective" analysis.
A casual glance at a compendium such as Crowley's Sepher Sephiroth shows a great diversity of words and terms that enumerate to the same number. Therefore it's a matter of context, of selecting those that are meaningful within the context. Gematria is an art-form, not a science.
Grant wasn't bothered that some might view his use of gematria as being at times not kosher; I think that his unconcern was correct. Obviously you think otherwise, and of course that's your choice. It's a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by maybank on Nov 5, 2013 22:45:59 GMT
A fair point, Michael. I wasn't aware of Grant's use of Greek or Cabala Simplex methods; all the examples I had come across, or could recall, were those which used the Hebrew, so I assumed this was his method.
The knowledge that three different methods were employed does, I feel, reinforce my impression of 'increasing the odds' of a significant number being arrived at.
However, I do agree with you that Grant's gematria is "an art-form, not a science", which is what I meant by describing it as a "poetic device".
Your observation that he is using gematria not to arrive at a hitherto unknown insight, but to emphasize something he had already come up with, is, I feel, an important one in this respect. I think my intermittent difficulty with his gematria is because I'd conceived of it as a science, as uncovering mathemetical proofs of the Universe. If one dispenses with that notion, and sees KG employing it as an artist, rather than a scientist, then his gematria makes a lot more sense.
I do not know enough of medieval Kabbalism to know whether this is how the likes of Abulafia originally concieved of gematria. I suspect Grant's methods is very different from theirs - but none the worse for that...he has adapted something for his own use, much as Bertiaux created his own system using elements of Haitian Vodou.
PS I see there is already a thread on Grant's gematria in the 'Other' subforum; my apologies, I didn't spot this when I made the initial post. Please move this over to that pre-existing thread if you feel it would be neater there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on Nov 5, 2013 23:01:31 GMT
I'm content for this to be a separate thread, maybank. I'm surprised that you hadn't come across Grant's use of Greek qabalah or cabala simplex before. All his books from Nightside of Eden onwards have a great deal of gematria, and I'm sure that examples of Greek gematria and cabala simplex are there.
I don't personally see how gematria could be a science. When there are several different words or phrases - often contradictory - which add up to the same number, then the interpretation of the gematria is of necessity going to be selective.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Jan 20, 2014 3:01:54 GMT
Grant's writing in general, and in particular his use of gematria, is akin to the effect of binaural beats on consciousness. It is a masterful usage of words to entrance the rational mind and push it or cause it to "leap" outside the usual boundaries. It is the *effect* this has on consciousness, and the gateways that are entered by means of his words, that are of interest here, not so much the literal and rational math adding up. It is the sums found in between the numbers, the words and images that spring forth from these "gaps" in logical and expected results, where new vistas of experience await
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jan 27, 2014 8:43:46 GMT
Where does Grant insist on using Hebrew? He doesn't, so far as I am aware. In fact, his use of Greek gematria, as well as Cabala Simplex, rather undermines your idea that he insists on the use of Hebrew. Admittedly he uses Hebrew predominantly, but that's his choice, not a matter of "insistence". With Grant, it is the number that is all-important, because he is using gematrical relationships to underpin and insight that he has already had, instead of reaching an insight by virtue of a gematrical relationship. This leads him at times to stretch the gematria, but Grant is interested in painting a picture, not in presenting a scientific, "objective" analysis. A casual glance at a compendium such as Crowley's Sepher Sephiroth shows a great diversity of words and terms that enumerate to the same number. Therefore it's a matter of context, of selecting those that are meaningful within the context. Gematria is an art-form, not a science. Grant wasn't bothered that some might view his use of gematria as being at times not kosher; I think that his unconcern was correct. Obviously you think otherwise, and of course that's your choice. It's a matter of opinion. Quite. It didn't start with him either. Crowley's gematria is all over the place from an academic pedant's point of view, as is much of the G.D. material he learned it from (and then published). It's an instrument.
The chapter "Creative Gematria" in Kenneth Grant's Outer Gateways might also be mentioned here for anyone who is curious about this subject, or to whom a non-analytical approach to illumination seems novel (despite being anything but).
Gematria can be a magical technique, as much as mystical.
|
|
|
Post by equinoxofthegods on Apr 2, 2014 5:32:59 GMT
I personally found Grant's use of Gematria really inspiring. Before being exposed to Grant's writings, my only exposure to gematria was through Hebrew Kaballah, Crowley, Israel Regardie and the Golden Dawn. I found Sepher Sephira very helpful and interesting when analyzing Hebrew Kabbalah and trying to make new associations with Liber AL, divine names of different pantheons, people, places,things etc...but upon experiencing Grant's more creative use of gematria, the art form really became much more useful and open ended. In general I find Grant's approach to magick and Thelema to be very "New Aeon" and individualistic, and his use of gematria is a great example of this.
The argument comes up time and time again that Grant takes a lot of liberties in his use of Gematria. It brings to mind the argument of classical vs abstract painting, or traditional vs progressive music preference etc...those who are classically trained sometimes seem to have trouble accepting a more free approach to their respective art forms. Despite the fact that these traditionalist thinkers can find any number of reasons to discredit those who are taking their art to new places, it does not change the fact that a number of people find these more individual and progressive forms of expression more interesting and vibrant than a more traditional approach.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Apr 2, 2014 9:36:58 GMT
[ ... ] In general I find Grant's approach to magick and Thelema to be very "New Aeon" and individualistic, and his use of gematria is a great example of this. The argument comes up time and time again that Grant takes a lot of liberties in his use of Gematria. It brings to mind the argument of classical vs abstract painting, or traditional vs progressive music preference etc...those who are classically trained sometimes seem to have trouble accepting a more free approach to their respective art forms. Despite the fact that these traditionalist thinkers can find any number of reasons to discredit those who are taking their art to new places, it does not change the fact that a number of people find these more individual and progressive forms of expression more interesting and vibrant than a more traditional approach. Well put, equinoxofthegods. People complaining about Grant's gematria, which is no different (whatsoever) from Crowley's various bastard cabalas (themselves no different in principle to Golden Dawn modes of deployment of their Magical alphabet - all geared to resonate with their own symbolic soups, whose various resonances are partly learned and partly innate in the beholder), seems analagous to a medievalist art lover whining about the introduction of perspective in the Renaissance. It's occultism for god's sake. Act like it!
|
|
|
Post by Ad Finem on Apr 2, 2014 9:40:05 GMT
You make some very good points on this issue equinoxofthegods. You are right about KG. He was perhaps more than anything a surrealist when it came to Gematria and this is not a criticism, but a compliment, because it is precisely this skill and this creative ability that is required in both in magic and the unlocking the mysteries of AL and other such transmissions. From my own research and experiences of many years of hard work, I would say, without doubt, that this is the most important skill a magician can develop. Within these Worlds that we seek to penetrate logical and structured thinking breaks down. I believe that the original Qabalists were the surrealists of their day.
99
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 3, 2014 14:27:23 GMT
Have just done my bit of creative gematria on the 'Grant and the view of Qlipoths' thread.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Apr 7, 2014 16:29:30 GMT
The chapter "Creative Gematria" in Kenneth Grant's Outer Gateways might also be mentioned here for anyone who is curious about this subject, or to whom a non-analytical approach to illumination seems novel (despite being anything but).
Grant's use of gematria is a magickal weapon that unleashes unexpected, trans-rational realizations in the consciousness. This is true mystic art. In this sense it is like a zen koan, or a sudden strike of illumination. A strange symphony of images and sounds come together uniquely and manipulate consciousness in ways infinitely more profound that the stark, cold calculations of the rational mind and its number and word crunching. Follow the arguments down seemingly well lighted corridors, only to suddenly realize you have stepped into a Escher staircase, the sky has opened up, and ancient cyclopean architectures are glimpsed through the mists. On a side note... having just finished up another reading of Outer Gateways, I have to say it ranks up as one of the best in the trilogies. The discussions of sunyata and the profound "speech in the silence" of the Wisdom of S'lba.. magnificent!
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 11, 2014 13:19:32 GMT
Very nicely expressed, Gregory.
The "Creative Gematria" chapter in Outer Gateways is essential reading for the understanding of Grant's use of gematria. Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with every word of it. Worthwhile gematria is a creative endeavour, but it does have a basis in certain intellectual requirements and disciplines. For one thing, you need to be able to draw on a substantial Book of Numbers to be able to use it extensively, or as and when required; this should be a personal, evolving work, rather like the Magical Diary, but could well incorporate general gematria research for context.
Like a good magickal word or formula, a tight, coherent complex of gematria correspondences can be a very affective magickal engine.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Apr 11, 2014 20:41:39 GMT
Thanks Stephen.
I do not disagree with what you say above; in fact, I have for many years now kept my own notebook of "interesting numbers" and associations that follow the generally accepted rules for gematria/isopsephy. I think both disciplines have their place as tools, the traditional way being obviously more accepted and standardized in its procedure. Grantian creative gematria is somewhat akin to Jazz music in that sense. It breaks and bends rules, finds connections that might otherwise have never occurred, and is much more personal perhaps - a work of art.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Apr 12, 2014 2:01:13 GMT
Some good points there, gents.
I have never noticed a dichotomy between what Grant does with gematria and what his mentors (Crowley, G.D.) did with it.
As far as I can see, in terms of modern (post-19th century) magical practise, Grant's gematria is Traditional gematria (as opposed to bible study). There is an immense amount of detail of his own "Book(s) of Numbers" scattered throughout his many works, and he everywhere insists on each magician developing their own, according to their Will. This is as traditional as it can get for a Thelemite.
Possibly what he did was more extensive and complete than any previously documented furnishings of an individual magical universe through its means, but that's the only real difference I can see. He leads by example, as well as instruction. Crowley explored mathematical expressions more, as was his wont, and provided tabulations of some of his own personally resonant numbers, along with existing historical correspondences established by others in the past. Grant explored other expressions relevant to him in a way which he found convenient for his purposes. That's traditional gematria in the school of G.D. and Crowley, etc., (magical gematria for mystical intent) and every generation adds its own lustre to the pile.
N-M B, N0T 2
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 12, 2014 10:52:06 GMT
Thanks Stephen. I do not disagree with what you say above; in fact, I have for many years now kept my own notebook of "interesting numbers" and associations that follow the generally accepted rules for gematria/isopsephy. I think both disciplines have their place as tools, the traditional way being obviously more accepted and standardized in its procedure. Grantian creative gematria is somewhat akin to Jazz music in that sense. It breaks and bends rules, finds connections that might otherwise have never occurred, and is much more personal perhaps - a work of art. The Count Basie school of gematria, perhaps ?
|
|
|
Post by Ad Finem on Apr 12, 2014 17:22:35 GMT
Thanks Stephen. I do not disagree with what you say above; in fact, I have for many years now kept my own notebook of "interesting numbers" and associations that follow the generally accepted rules for gematria/isopsephy. I think both disciplines have their place as tools, the traditional way being obviously more accepted and standardized in its procedure. Grantian creative gematria is somewhat akin to Jazz music in that sense. It breaks and bends rules, finds connections that might otherwise have never occurred, and is much more personal perhaps - a work of art. A very good practice and a great way to keep a record of your magical universe. I find I do this now with mostly English words and especially with AL since it was written in that language and so, therefore, many of it's secrets can be found by referencing many English words, particularly those of a Typhonian nature. The word, "pig" for example = 93 a key typhonian animal. The word, "will" = 76 thus indicating a key in the cypher in AL v 76. "Love" = 47 the same as the word AUM and 13 (Achad, unity / love) less than 60 the sixtystone - the two loves (serpent / dove) or twin currents (Aquarius) which transmit the stone. In English the word, "stone" = 521. 5 x 12 = 60 and 5 +2 = 7 with the 1 = 71 Lam the egg or stone shaped, but more importantly it contains the number 52 which is a vital number, representing a secret word repeated a set number of times in AL. There are many other such examples of which unlock many of the myseteis of AL. One last example from a definition in mathematics with reference to the verse Crowley changed. "A non-atomic measure with at least one positive value has an infinite number of distinct values." 99
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 13:35:58 GMT
To provide a possible answer OPs question - Mr. Grant used Hebrew because of the Atu which he frequently references. And the Atu use Hebrew because of its relation to the Tree of Life, among other reasons. But, as others said he did not use it exclusively. He even hinted at a few private systems he had knowledge of which contained interesting magical systems. Certainly he unlocked much arcana with the Qabalah and Keys he provided. It is well worth while to build your own 'Sepher Sephiroth' from his work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 15:55:03 GMT
I showed in the TOTO SOTHiS journal of the 1970s that gematria could be explored by geometry, and that the I Ching hexagrams and the geomantic characters could be reduced to binary numbers. Everybody goes a bit mad when they first get their hands on Liber 777.
I see gematria as being about the development of relational hypotheses and scenarios that might not otherwise have been considered.
Why should the world be ordered around the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet? The Qabala is too big to fail for many people, so there is reluctance to dump the Hebrew alphabet if that means the so-called Tree of Life and the 22 ATU will be left hanging in mid air.
Nothing in this universe can escape evolution, not even the gods themselves, so the idea that we are bound or beholden to the 'Wisdom of the Ancients' - to the authority of rotting parchments and crumbling scrolls left in trust for us by nomadic Semitic tribes in the Late Bronze Age - can not limp on much father down the road.
Let's think about the Golden Dawn forgeries and why they came about. Why did the best organized and most creative magical organisation of the modern era feel the need to anchor itself on a forgery? The answer lies in lack of self-confidence. Mathers & Co lacked the personal power to step forward and say that they'd just invented a whole new system of syncretic magic, and would you like to join our new order? Instead, they put their own words and ideas into the mouths of bogus Secret Chiefs, who could not be challenged or held accountable for weaknesses in the organisation, its theory and practice. The Secret Chiefs performed the role of an infallible pope.
The time has come to develop a secular symbolic language of universals likely to be decoded and understood by alien intelligences.
I have been using the crystalline structure of the tobacco mosaic virus as a projectable model of analytic thought to which interested entities might respond, but have yet to receive anything I can identify as a reaction in the Great Elsewhere.
I have taken the injunction that Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs seriously, which means that everything must be re-invented afresh from first principles, as you can see.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on May 15, 2014 6:57:58 GMT
... Let's think about the Golden Dawn forgeries and why they came about. Why did the best organized and most creative magical organisation of the modern era feel the need to anchor itself on a forgery? The answer lies in lack of self-confidence. Mathers & Co lacked the personal power to step forward and say that they'd just invented a whole new system of syncretic magic, and would you like to join our new order? Instead, they put their own words and ideas into the mouths of bogus Secret Chiefs, who could not be challenged or held accountable for weaknesses in the organisation, its theory and practice. The Secret Chiefs performed the role of an infallible pope. The time has come to develop a secular symbolic language of universals likely to be decoded and understood by alien intelligences. I have been using the crystalline structure of the tobacco mosaic virus as a projectable model of analytic thought to which interested entities might respond, but have yet to receive anything I can identify as a reaction in the Great Elsewhere. I have taken the injunction that Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs seriously, which means that everything must be re-invented afresh from first principles, as you can see.
Brocken, this touches upon something very important but I'm not sure you've fully unpacked it, as it were, splendid though your thoughts are. What I mean is that I'm not entirely sure the Secret Chiefs were intentionally conceived as bogus by Mathers and Wescott et al. They did in fact function as Alien Intelligences quite apart from the infallible pope (Class A), and it was upon this model that Crowley "encountered" Aiwass. Well into the 20th century Dr. Felkin was receiving material from the Golden Dawn Secret Chiefs in New Zealand for the GD lodges he was running there, providing through this means materials for work with the higher degrees the original GD didn't provide for (from 6=5 up). Obviously you're right in suggesting the "untouchable" category can be abused into authority positions, to be wielded by any self-ordained cleric who can dupe the vulnerable or lost looking for answers or something to hang on to. This is an important point. However, it's important to also consider that the Secret Chiefs were considered by GD very much identically to the way in which Crowley viewed Aiwass. Crowley viewed the works he believed were written "through" rather than by himself to be "Class A" and above criticism (infallible), as if they'd been dictated by a Thelemic pope-ghost. Whether these disembodied authorities are "real" as such or just (consciously-derived, or, perhaps otherwise) excuses to help circumvent one's own rational razors is another question. The phenomenon of the process is a perennial pattern. Each man is his own priest of the infinite! And to hell with all clergy who would get in the way. Loving your posts by the way. Yours in non-mobile becoming, N0T 2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 7:54:48 GMT
Perhaps you are right, NOT 2, and I have been unjust and gone too far with my poisoned fruit of the poisoned tree argument flowing from the problems around Anna Sprengel and the Cipher Manuscript.
Needless to say, these difficulties don't take away from the wonderful creativity and imagination of the G:.D:. irrespective of whether or not the G:.D: endeavour owed its existence and ongoing vitality to the Secret Chiefs of the Sprengel narrative, or the later direct and ongoing connection to them claimed by Mathers et al.
It seems to me to hold up very well without the need for a higher legitimizing authority, though this may not have seemed so in the 1890s.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on May 15, 2014 9:13:22 GMT
Why should the world be ordered around the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet? The Qabala is too big to fail for many people, so there is reluctance to dump the Hebrew alphabet if that means the so-called Tree of Life and the 22 ATU will be left hanging in mid air. The world isn't ordered around the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. That's classic "the map is not the territory" territory, surely? There are other systems of gematria around, based on for instance the letters of the Greek alphabet, or on various permutations of the English alphabet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 13:44:30 GMT
Why should the world be ordered around the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet? The Qabala is too big to fail for many people, so there is reluctance to dump the Hebrew alphabet if that means the so-called Tree of Life and the 22 ATU will be left hanging in mid air. The world isn't ordered around the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. That's classic "the map is not the territory" territory, surely? There are other systems of gematria around, based on for instance the letters of the Greek alphabet, or on various permutations of the English alphabet. My italicised and wry question was intended to point the way to alternative notation of the sort you have suggested, Michael, but we are still left with the 'correspondences' and dependencies of the 22 letter system such as the Major Arcana or ATU as they stand at the moment.
I don't think tidying it up around the edges and jiggling with the sequence of a few of the cards, as we have seen done in the past, will do anything more than sow confusion. The whole creaking edifice needs to be demolished and reinvented from first principles that owe nothing to the 'Wisdom of the Ancients' and the 'Golden Age.' If it was left up to me I'd edit Crowley's books and papers down to ten useful pages, I'd chuck out the 22 letter alphabet, the so-called Tree of Life, the entirety of ceremonial magic and its rituals of this and that, its magical implements, candles, incense, baroque costumes and every sort of paraphernalia in order to see what was left, what is there that remains. A healthy society needs and benefits from the existence of a radical wing.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on May 15, 2014 14:16:50 GMT
If it was left up to me I'd edit Crowley's books and papers down to ten useful pages, I'd chuck out the 22 letter alphabet, the so-called Tree of Life, the entirety of ceremonial magic and its rituals of this and that, its magical implements, candles, incense, baroque costumes and every sort of paraphernalia in order to see what was left, what is there that remains. A healthy society needs and benefits from the existence of a radical wing. Spare, Carroll, and various minimalistic antinomians have done admirable work in this direction, but I suspect people bother with the things you mention for the same reason your avatar is an ancient Egpytian god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 14:22:00 GMT
If it was left up to me I'd edit Crowley's books and papers down to ten useful pages, I'd chuck out the 22 letter alphabet, the so-called Tree of Life, the entirety of ceremonial magic and its rituals of this and that, its magical implements, candles, incense, baroque costumes and every sort of paraphernalia in order to see what was left, what is there that remains. A healthy society needs and benefits from the existence of a radical wing. Spare, Carroll, and various minimalistic antinomians have done admirable work in this direction, but I suspect people bother with the things you mention for the same reason your avatar is an ancient Egpytian god. For aesthetic and artistic reasons, then. Yes, I can see that.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on May 15, 2014 14:29:21 GMT
Needless to say, these difficulties don't take away from the wonderful creativity and imagination of the G:.D:. irrespective of whether or not the G:.D: endeavour owed its existence and ongoing vitality to the Secret Chiefs of the Sprengel narrative, or the later direct and ongoing connection to them claimed by Mathers et al. It seems to me to hold up very well without the need for a higher legitimizing authority, though this may not have seemed so in the 1890s. I think that as you say it does hold up. However, it is what it is. What that is includes all of it. Whether or not this is so (i.e., whether or not GD material/history/etc. requires the "legitimizing authority" of the Secret Chiefs for value)*, it's worth keeping an open mind, in my view, as to whether the Chiefs (or at least the idea of them) was of value in itself as a technique of "space-holding" for genuine alien intelligences, whether or not they were the ones directly or indirectly behind the material. They may have been "behind" it, or part of it (or, as I'm inclined to hold, it part of them!). __ * I agree with you that it holds up on its own, but I would preferably include these Chiefs in that definition, and, additionally, their offices, or the idea of those offices, as having intrinsic value in and of itself, whether specifically those or otherwise. Also, they didn't stop there - the entire thing was built into Rosicrucian history, or mythography, using the late Renaissance Fama as the ultimate founding-myth/authority. Although the rest of its syncretic symbolatry is independently worthy, the founding myths (Fama, Secret Chiefs) or accounts of what came before were intergal in their own way to the overall context within which the most important ceremonial initiatory experiences were had (back when it was Legal, pre-Abrogation, i.e., pre-1904 e.v. . ahem.). Of course the central tenet of Thelema is that each man is his own deity (in the cosmic sense) and is therefore without need of external legitimizing authority as such. The fact that Thelema (the cult of the individual divine) itself is the result of an annunciation myth entirely reliant (via its own internal narrative as well as its official account) upon an external, discarnate authority** to deliver it to us means we could be presented with a mystery paradox, or, perhaps, a phenomenon that remains to be fully exploited or understood. **or, more accurately, reliant upon one's own acceptance of it
|
|