Magick 101: the 4 Elements

Elaborations on the 5 Statements: 1. the ancient "alchemical" elements (water, air, fire, earth) can be used symbolically to substitute in all equations involving them for the 4 universal forces (gravity, electromagnetism, fission, fusion).

The matter of attributing any 4 variables in 1 set to any 4 other variables in another set is not easy, and one may never be 100% certain their manner of attribution is the sole “best” and only “right” 1 out of all 16 (12 non-repeating) possible options. Consider, for a simple example, the set of 4 variables we may label “1,2,3,4” and the other set of 4 variables we may label “A,B,C,D.” So, how may we compare these? The “path of least resistance” is to place them as titles of horizontal “rows” and vertical “columns” such that either set’s variables may occupy either attribute and still yield the same end result when compared. So either set “1” or set “A” is titled as horizontal “rows” and then the other set, either “A” or “1” respectively, is titled as the vertical “columns.” Then, the results maybe tabulated into a square by combining each variable per “row” & “column”: ex. “1” A B C D

ex. “A” 1 A1 B1 C1 D1

2 A2 B2 C2 D2

3 A3 B3 C3 D3

4 A4 B4 C4 D4

1 2 3` 4

A 1A 2A 3A 4A

B 1B 2B 3B 4B

C 1C 2C 3C 4C

D 1D 2D 3D 4D

We can safely assume, regardless of any other similarities or differences between set “A” and set “1,” that when combined via “rows” and “columns,” their combinations are in a 50% : 50% ratio in each case, whichever set is taken as “row” and whichever as “column,” so long as one is one and the other the other. [I stipulate this caveat because later in this essay, I will address the matter of resolving if one’s attributes are accurate, and this involves comparing a single set of variables to and against itself in this same manner.]

So, if we may say that this “rows” and “columns” method of combination mixes each variable trait equally with every other in a 1:1 blending of both, then we may see that the results of example “1” and of example “A” are exactly equal to one another whether they are written in order by “row” first then “column” second, or vice versa. Therefore, we may positively assert that “A1” (as the equal combination of variables “A” and “1”) is exactly equal to the trait “1A,” which represents the exact same combination of variables.

So, let us begin to ponder on real sets of 4 variables that we may find in our surrounding environment. Bound - as we are - to look out at this world through eyes on a face inside a head, among the first such variables we may find are our own bodily appendages (the 2 arms and 2 legs) and our head’s directions of motion on our neck (up, down, left and right). [The fact we have a “front” and “back” is a notion I might return to later also, when discussing the dimension of time itself, but for now it maybe excluded from discussion.] Next, we might notice the 4 “cardinal directions” of the motion of our planet (as the sky rises in the east and sets in the west, implying the axis of motion of north and

south) and the concurrent 4 “seasons” of weather on earth (caused by earth’s “wobbling” difference of 23.5° for its polar axis from being perfectly perpendicular - or “right” angled - to its orbital plane around the sun) that result from this motion. So, let’s start by comparing these simple sets of variables: set “1” will be the set of variables of our own independent components (our 2 arms and 2 legs and our 4 “cardinal” directions for motion on earth’s surface) and set “A” will be the set of variables describing the components of our planet (its motions and their effect on its nature).

The usual manner of expressing the model that results from comparison between such traits is a circle crossed in the center by two bars - one a horizontal “row” and the other a vertical “column” - and this expression has since come to be a nearly global symbol for our planet “earth” itself. In many Native American tribes, the same symbol is called the “Medicine Wheel” and included the same basic characteristic traits upon it. In elder, Celtic Rune-lore it is purportedly symbolic of the earth as “Gaia” - the motherly spirit of earth’s terrestrial nature. In ancient, Hebrew QBLH, the symbol has come to stand for “Malkuth” - the Kingdom “sefirot” or emanation from godhead - the lowest of such on their so-called “tree of life” model expressing the “body of god.”

In this model, called the “Quaternion” in modern Jungian psychology, the attribute traits of one set (either “1” or “A”) maybe placed outside the circle at the points of intersection with the vertical and horizontal bars of the cross, and then the attribute traits of the other set (either “A” or “1”) maybe placed upon these bars of the central cross. In some, later models the labels associated with the bars were more clearly associated with the 4 quadrants of the divided circle. [However this ultimately led to a dispute over a circle with 8 divisions and a circle with 12 divisions that is at the origin of the easternmigrating Oriental philosophies and the western-migrating philosophies of the Occident, a matter which we do not have the space or time to go into here and now.]

So, usually, the variable attribute traits are arranged upon this symbolic framework thus:

Here we see the variable attribute traits of set “1” (those describing our own possible directions for motions on earth’s surface) and of set “A” (those describing earth’s motions by daily rotation and by orbital year or annual revolution) are placed around the exterior of the circle’s circumference - at the “cardinal” locations where this shape intersects the “bars” of the interior cross - and placed upon these bars themselves (respectively).

So, knowing these manners of attribution for such sets of 4 variable traits apiece - those of the “rows” and “columns” method and the “crossed-circle” motif - let us begin to examine the elemental aspects of nature itself, both on earth and also beyond us in the greater cosmos. On earth, we find the 4 essential elements of terrestrial nature maybe quickly ascertained, but have long been debated about in their influences and spirits.

These are, of course, “water, air, fire and earth,” however the proper order of these in a list form has differed from culture to culture over time and has, ultimately, included all: Water, air, fire, earth Water, fire, earth, air Water, earth, air, fire

Air, fire, earth, water Air, earth, water, fire Air, water, fire, earth

Fire, earth, water, air Fire, water, air, earth Fire, air, earth, water

Earth, water, air, fire Earth, air, fire, water Earth, fire, water, air

It should be noted here, there are 12 such (non-repeating) lists for these 4 variables and this differs from the number of 16 possible recombinations of 1 set of 4 variables (“1”) with another (“A”). In the combinations of 2 different variable sets, it maybe safely assumed that the 2 sets are of totally different variable attribute traits entirely (such that none of the variables of one set appear also in the other). In the possible recombinations of the 4 variables in only 1 such set, any such “repeating” variables (occurring in both sets) are automatically excluded. Thus, without any “repeating” or “doubling” of the essential elements as variable traits, there are 12 possible recombinations, but in the comparison of these elemental traits to any other set of 4 variables, there would be 16.

[Although, as we shall soon see, such “doubles” only result from the “repetition” of comparing 1 relative element in 1 set to its essentially similar element in the other.]

For millennia, Hebrew QBLH had already asserted the proposition that the cosmos was comprised of the 4 “worlds” that were seen as 4 “nested” spheres-within-spheres.

However, because they differed in their ordering for the relative elements of each sphere from the Greeks, they remained a clandestine and occult practice during the European dark-ages and only re-emerged afterwards to be studied the world over. The Hebrew attribution of the 4 elements to the 4 “worlds” of QBLH was such: the innermost, smallest sphere was called “Assiyah” and associated with the element earth; the next larger sphere was called “Beriah” and associated with the element water; above this was the sphere of “Yetzirah” associated with the air; supernal to all was the realm of “Atziluth,” populated by the element of fire. However, the Greek order for these attributes differed because, instead of placing the “solar” fire supernal to the others, they understood it as

the “lake of fire” or the “inferno” of Hades, the underworld pit of the grave and Hell; thus, the Greek order for their understanding of the elements proceeded with fire first, then to earth, then to water and then to air, surrounded above by the “ether” or void.

Also, because of this conflict in perception between the Hebrew and Greek models, a split in QBLH formed between the original Hebrew and later (Neo-Platonic Greek-influenced) Christian thinkers on the subject of which “sefirot” emanation on the “tree of life” should occur first and which last; the original Hebrew assertion was that God descends from the highest sefirot, “Kether” (the crown) toward the lowest, “Malkuth” (the kingdom) because it is the desire of the “Shekinah” (the “presence” or “bride” of God) to be “reunited” with her “bridegroom” (the “spark” of a soul in all living beings); the original Greek and later Christian assertion was that man ascends from the lowest plane, “Malkuth” toward the realm of the most high, “Kether.” This debate is recalled as that over the “running and returning” of the twin pillars on the “tree of life” model.

At the same time as this dogmatic difference was developing in the west, in the east the Buddhist Dharma was teaching the concept of the “Noble 8-fold Path” or “Middle Way” of: 1. Right views; 2. Right intent; 3. Right speech; 4. Right actions; 5. Right job; 6. Right works; 7. Right mind; 8. Right meditation. While, in Buddhism, the trance of “nirvana” and escape from “Samsara” by good “karma” is alike the top Sefirot of QBLH’s “tree of life,” so are the 4 elemental components of “Samsara” (Sanskrit for “suffering”) - the “4 Noble Truths” - alike those 4 elemental components of “Malkuth”: the Truth of the existence of suffering being like winter, the Truth of the cause of suffering being like spring, the Truth of the outcome of suffering being like summer and the Truth of the Noble 8-fold path to end suffering alike autumn.

If we may safely assume that there are 4 basic elements comprising the nature of our planet earth, and that these maybe summed up by the titles for them of “water, air, fire and earth,” then we will have arrived at the level of reckoning brought about by ergot in Ancient Greece. However, next we must - just as had the philosophers of that region’s “Golden Age” - reason out what this means.

The pre-Socratic philosophers attempted to debate the issue on behalf of each element, such that Thales (623 - 545 BC) spoke for water, Anaximenes (586 - 526) spoke for air, Heraclitus (535 - 475) spoke for fire and Parmenides (~475) spoke for earth. It was, originally, Empedocles (494 - 434) whom proposed the idea of the 4 elements each being equal and distinct, however the idea of their existence was attributed to Pythagoras (570 - 495) in the work “Timaeus,” written down by Plato (428 - 347), recopied by memory from a dialogue of Socrates (470 - 399), wherein each of the elements is associated with 1 of the 5 (later, so-called) “Platonic solids” or (nowadays so-called) regular, convex polyhedra possible in 3-dimensions, thus: Fire = tetrahedron (4 triangles) Air = octahedron (8 triangles) Water = icosahedron (20 triangles) Earth = cube (6 squares).

Aristotle (384 - 322 BC), the student of Plato, wrote in his treatise “On Generation and Corruption” that each of these 4 elements corresponded to 2 of 4 sensory qualities: “wet or dry, cold or hot;” such that: fire is hot & dry, air is hot & wet, water is cold & wet and earth is cold & dry. Although immensely arbitrary by this point, Aristotle’s was the first comparison since Pythagoras of 1 such set of 4 elements to another.

Plato - quoting Socrates whom, in turn, was quoting Timeaus of Locri, a student of Pythagoras - assigned the “Platonic solids” to the 4 elements as being the “atomic” particles of each, but described the one remaining “Platonic solid” - the dodecahedron (12 pentagons) - as being the overall shape of the cosmos itself, having formed from the initial shape of the cosmos - a sphere. By describing the “fifth element” of “ether” as being independent of any of the other 4 terrestrial elements, Aristotle added also his own idea for a universal force that had, as its “atomic” unit, the dodecahedron.

Although this changed the number of basic elements comprising all material objects in all subsequent thinking from Greece, it merely brought theirs into line with already established systems of reasoning from the Far East. In eldest Indian Hinduism, the 4 elements are called: Bhumi (earth), Ap (water), Agni (fire) and Marut (air), with the “5th element” being called “Akasha” (meaning the void) and these were qualified by the 5 senses on a scale such that: earth maybe perceived by all 5 senses; water maybe perceived by all but smell; fire may not be smelled nor tasted; air can be heard and felt; the “Akasha” can only be heard. In more recent Buddhism, the 4 elements are: solidity (earth), cohesion (water), expansion (air) and temperature (fire). In the ancient Chinese “I Ching” system, the elements are called the “Bagua” and are listed as: “Tian” (air) & “Feng” (wind); “Ze” (lake) & “Shui” (water); “Huo” (fire) & “Lei” (thunder); and “Di” (ground) & “Shan” (mountain).

Later, systems of “Alchemy” would arise in both medieval Europe and feudal-era China and Japan, that would attempt to further expand on these 4 basic elemental variables by combining them with the 3 possible conditions for “matter” assumed from the 3 states or phases of water (solid ice, liquid fluid and gaseous evaporation). The European Alchemists associated these conditions with “salt” (solidity), “quicksilver” (fluidity) and “sulfur” (gas), while the Chinese and Japanese added the essence of “wood” (generation) and “metal” (destruction) to the original “Bagua” of the I Ching. The combination of 4 elements with 3 states (phases or conditions) brings the total number of independent variable attributes up to 7 and relating these 4 and 3 by “rows” and “columns” yields another group of 12 recombinations relating also to the 12 constellations of the ecliptic planar zodiac.

The resultant “Astrology” describes that - when the 4 terrestrial elements are taken as horizontal “rows” or as vertical “columns” while the 3 essential phases of these are taken as whichever (columns or rows) the other is not - the 12 signs of the zodiac maybe used to demarcate their recombinations. The reasoning for this is calendrical: there are 3 such “zodiac signs” per season, and the seasons maybe compared to the elements, as such: spring = air, summer = fire; autumn = water; winter = earth. Thus, the 3 spring signs are

called air signs, the 3 summer signs fire signs, the 3 autumn signs water signs and the 3 winter signs earth signs. So, in this system, each of the 4 elements is attributed 3 possible states or conditions of being, such that each “elemental” season has a “rising,” a “peak” and a “declining” phase, and each of these is symbolized by one of the 12 “zodiac” signs.

Thus Aries, the ram - the waxing, “ascendent” spring and “air” sign - was followed by the “succeedent” spring “air” sign - Taurus, the bull - and this by the waning, “cadent” spring “air” sign - Gemini, the twins; so summer is marked by the “fire” signs of: Cancer, the crab - ascending - of Leo, the lion - at its peak - and of Virgo, the virgin - in its decline; likewise autumn is marked by the “water” signs of: Libra, the scales - rising - of Scorpio, the scorpion - peaking - and of Sagittarius, the archer - in decline; and just so are the earth signs of winter: Capricorn, the goat-fish - rising - Aquarius, the waterbearer - mid-season - and Pisces, the fish - in the end.

Of course, a simple comparison of these glyphs’ meanings to their attribution by this system demonstrates how the “calendar” used to measure the 12 zodiac signs as averaged “months” of a single solar orbit by earth can change over the vast durations of time that maybe measured using the same 12 zodiac signs to count the durations as “Aeons” instead. When astrology began, some 6000 years (or 3 such Aeons) ago, in most ancient Sumer, then the zodiac signs we now see by spring shone in the skies during winter, and those we see now by summer shone then in spring, etc. Thus, the modern spring / air signs symbolized winter / earth motifs; the modern summer / fire signs symbolized spring / air traits; the modern autumn / water signs displayed summer / fire traits; and the modern winter / earth signs signified, originally, the autumn / water signs on the zodiac round.

By the 20th century AD, Astrology had given birth to Astronomy and Alchemy to Chemistry. While chemistry studied the “periodic table” of known molecular “elements,” astronomy studied the composition of outer space and of other planets and stars. When the “molecules” of chemistry were found to be comprised of smaller units (then thought to be indivisible any further) these were called “atoms” (from the Greek), but when these “atoms” were also found to be comprised of even smaller elemental units as well, these smaller units were named “quanta” (from the Latin). By this time, astrophysics had defined the scale between material mass and intangible energy into the (yet accepted) 4 “elemental forces” of: gravity, electromagnetism, fission and fusion; where fusion and fission relate to “real” particle quanta (so-called “Bosons”) and where electromagnetism relates to “virtual” particle quanta (so-called “Fermions”). Just as “fusion” effects “real” quanta (Bosons) attractively, so does “gravity” effect “virtual” quanta (Fermions) attractively, however the “force-carrying” particle of gravity has not yet been found.

Because both the 4 “elemental forces” of the universe in quantum-astrophysics and the 4 “terrestrial elements” of classical antiquity are groups of 4, they maybe compared and contrasted by “rows” and “columns” to create a total of 16 possible recombinations.

However, because these variable attribute traits are being compared to find similarities, then only those recombinations that appear to be “doubled” traits maybe extrapolated.

Gravity Electromagnetism Fission Fusion

Water Gravity-water EM-water Fission-water Fusion-water

Air Gravity-air EM-air Fission-air Fusion-air

Fire Gravity-fire EM-fire Fission-fire Fusion-fire

Earth Gravity-earth EM-earth Fission-earth Fusion-earth.

Given these 16 recombinations of the 2 sets of 4 variable attribute traits apiece, it seems intuitively obvious that the “doubled” pairs would be those in a direct diagonal from the upper-left to lower-right on this chart: thus, “water” would pair with “gravity;” “air” with “electromagnetism;” “fire” with “fission;” and “earth” with “fusion.”

Unless we can deductively decompose and reintegrate these components in a proof, their correspondence to one another remains only an inductively reasoned approximation. So, to that end, we must then next compare these 4 assumed relative attribute traits to a different set of variable attribute traits - whether that be a set of 4, such as the seasons (spring, summer, autumn, winter), or a set of 3, such as the phenomenological states or conditions of matter (so-called salt, mercury and sulfur), or any other number-sum set.

Salt (solid) Quicksilver (liquid) Sulfur (gas)

Gravity-water Capricorn Aquarius Pisces

EM-air Libra Scorpio Sagittarius

Fission-fire Cancer Leo Virgo

Fusion-earth Aries Taurus Gemini.

The fact that the order for the 4 universal “elemental forces” and the order for the 4 seasons of the “mean year” are exactly in reverse of one another (such that, in 1: gravity, EM, fission and fusion; while in the other: winter, autumn, summer, spring); the fact that the attribution of the phenomenological states (salt, mercury and sulfur) to the waxing “ascendent,” the peaking “succedent” and the waning “cadent” durations on the calendar-round (be they “Aeons” or “months”) is arbitrary; and the fact that the zodiac signs being able to be associated to these 2 sets of variable attribute traits in this manner proves little or nothing about the nature of the variable attribute traits in themselves; all indicate an ultimate and underlying random-shuffling of the variable attributes is a more essential aspect of these 4 elemental traits than any exactly accurate order maybe.

If we may assume this initial comparison is anymore random and arbitrary than not, we will need to offer a second “proof” for the initially posited estimation comparing “water” to gravity, “air” to electromagnetism, “fire” to fission and “earth” to fusion. So, we may compare these attribute traits, like the Greeks, to the 5 “Platonic solids,” such that:

Tachyon-ether = tetrahedron (4 triangles) Gravity-water = icosahedron (20 triangles) EM-air = dodecahedron (12 pentagons) Fission-fire = octahedron (8 triangles) Fusion-earth = cube (6 squares).

To further demonstrate this comparison, it is also possible to color-code these traits according to the base-7 spectrum of colored light divided by a prism - from a single, white beam of light - or by rain - from sunlight forming a so-called “rainbow.” So, on this version of such a model, we may assign the color green to tachyon-ether, the color blue to gravity-water, the color yellow to EM-air, the color orange to fission-fire and the color indigo (or pink) to fusion-earth. The resultant colored “Platonic solids” may then be arranged in an arc with a green tetrahedron at the “cap-stone” above a yellow dodecahedron on one side and a blue icosahedron on the other, with an orange octahedron following below the yellow dodecahedron and an indigo (pink) cube below the blue icosahedron. This model maybe depicted thus:

1.

2.

4.

3.

5.

Where, 1. the green tetrahedron symbolizes tachyon-ether, 2. the yellow dodecahedron equals EM-air, 3. the blue icosahedron = gravity-water, 4. the orange octahedron is fission-fire and 5. the indigo (pink) cube fusion-earth. Again, however, this “proof” maybe seen as too arbitrary and random in its assignations for a discerning mind since, after all, the green tetrahedron symbolizing cosmos, the yellow dodecahedron symbolizing air and orange octahedron symbolizing fire all appear unlike the usual expectation for the attributions of such. This expectation is vestigial from the colorcoding developed for the 4 terrestrial elements during the Renaissance-era, which associates gold on blue with water, pink on yellow with air, red on green with earth and green on red with fire. The pinnacle of such assignations using this system was by Aleister Crowley (1875 - 1947 AD) color-coding the Golden Dawn’s arrangements by SL Mathers (1854 - 1918) of the 4 elements as traits upon the 4 “Watchtowers” of Elizabethan-era magus, Dr. John Dee (1527 – 1609).

This template displays yet another list order for the 4 elements: water (upper right), air (upper left), fire (lower right) and earth (lower left). Although these arrangements do lend themselves to a satisfactorily “final” array - as shown here - even in this “final” array is a sense of disorder, as the elements do not follow in either a “clockwise” nor “counterclockwise” rotation around the 4 quadrants, as they should and do in a proper “Medicine Wheel.” Instead, in this arrangement, they begin counterclockwise across the top, then diagonally “zig-zag” to the lower right and proceed clockwise to the lower left.

To some this diagonal “zig-zag” pattern may indicate the model is merely a spiral being seen from the side and at a 45° angle, although to others (perhaps most) it looks more like a mistake, thus proving - once again - the random “shuffling” of the elements being primary to their essential nature. Following is my own rearrangement of the 3 Alchemical phases (as rows) and the 4 Alchemical elements (as columns).

The final random “shuffling” of these 4 elemental attribute traits we should consider for now relates the 5 “Platonic solids” to locations on a Fibonacci or “phi” spiral. If we place the 5 regular polyhedra in 3-dimensions along such a spiral shape and attempt to do so in order from “least” to “greatest” complexity, then we will find the tetrahedron of 1 “story” height 1st, the octahedron of 2 “story” height 2nd, the icosahedron of 3 “story” height 3rd, the cube 4th and the dodecahedron 5th. This arrangement of the 5 “elements” along a “6th element” - the spiral - introduces the additional level of complexity that: 1 + 6 = 7, while 2 + 5 = 7 and 3 + 4 = 7 as well. This final “proof” regarding the random “shuffling” of the 4 elements should also continue to demonstrate that there is no single “absolutely” right ordering for these variable attribute traits.

It may yet be argued that a single, “absolutely” right order for all these elements can (and thus “must”) exist solely because each of these models is describing the same ideal at its core, only each from a different angle. The order of elements in the arch of colorcoded “Platonic solids” does not correspond to their order in the Fibonacci spiral of the same “Platonic solids;” this is intentional. The order of elements in the color-coded “Enochian Watchtowers” of Dee, Mathers and Crowley do not match either the order of the 4 annual “seasons,” the Greek 4 “elements” nor the Hebrew 4 “Worlds;” this too was intentional. The intention of all these orders for the same 4 elements as variable attribute traits differing for each is simple: they each display the same basic ideal at their core yet depict this core ideal from various vantage points that appear to differ only over time.

This brings us, in conclusion, to the final set of 5 variable attribute traits we will examine here for now; that set that includes not only the 5 “Platonic solids,” but also the 6 regular polytopes of 4-dimensional space, and the 3 of 5-dimensional space (and above) as well: the set of the first 5 spatial dimensions. This set begins with the singularity of the first-dimension; then proceeds to the linear-plane space of the second-dimension (defined by the 3 regular polygons on this level: the triangle, square and pentagon); next to the regular world of 3-dimensional space we live within (defined by the 5 “Platonic solids”); then to the 4th-spatial dimensional world (wherein 6 such regular convex polytopes exist); and finally to the 5th-spatial dimension (in which only 3 such shapes exist). [In fact, in all “n-dimensions” where “n” > 4, only 3 such regular polytope shapes exist per each dimension: the “n-simplex,” the “n-cube” and the “n-orthoplex” (based essentially on the same shapes as the 3-d tetrahedron, cube and octahedron).]

- Jonathan Barlow Gee July 10, 2020.