reply to post by moltquedelo
The traditional view is more like:
1 - Initiation, pioneering, me-centric, original, masculine archetype
2 - adaptation, uniting, we-centric, bonding, feminine archetype
3 - expression, creative, chaotic, free-spirited, child archetype
4 - foundation, stabilizing, predictable, builder archetype
5 - transformation, teaching, learning, transcending, evangelist archetype
6 - establishment, nurturing, community, home and family, parent archetype
7 - introspection, studying, mental/spiritual transformational efforts, scholar archetype
8 - organization, amassing, dominating, imposing, acquiring, executive archetype
9 - submission, giving, completing, philanthropy, charitable archetype
Within each of these numbers are specific expressions (up to #78, since they directly correspond to the Tarot deck) that are affected by the pair of
single digit numbers that combine to delineate down to that number. Example is 33/6, which has a 6 vibration but the nervous volatility of the two 3's
in how that 6 is expressed. A 42/6 is expressed very differently, and refects the more communal nature of the 4 and 2 influence iupon the delineated
6. Interestingly, a 24/6 has a somewhat different impact on the delineated 6, and this is due to the 2 being defined by the 4, as opposed to the 4
being defined by the 2 (in the sense of progressive influence) in the 42/6. It can seem complicated, but once you internalize the way the whole thing
works, it becomes fairly intuitive.
By the way, the Pythagorean Method of Numerology has recently been thoroughly debunked, so don't expect any accuracy from Numerologists that use that
method. The original Chaldean Method - based on the phonetic pronunciation of the name, as opposed to the specific spelling of that name - has emerged
as the only valid means of determining the Numerological value of a person's name. Of course, the birthdate isn't affected, since that's numerical.
However, the issue of the Julian Calendar and how that may or may not impact the accuracy of any method that depends on the numbers in a date that the
original creators of that method couldn't have imagined is (to me) suspect. I tend to dismiss the validity of the Life Lesson Number (birthdate
number), but I'm probably the only Numerologist that does. I just can't reconcile the BCE - CE issue as it relates to the accuracy of using the
numbers of a calendar date.
edit on 1/10/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)